Vox

Now let me get this straight. The RULING party, which controls all access to information about ITS members, somehow is victimized by one of its own members after ABC, acting on a complaint and information from one of the victimized parents of a young boy, confronts Foley about his conduct.
You know, sometimes Republicans act like they haven't been in control of Congress for 12 years (they'll get to know that feeling first hand after Nov. 7). This isn't dirty politics. It's a DIRTY POLITICIAN who imploded on the weight of transgressions that may have been kept secret by the RULING party for as long as five years.
Both parties have a long and ignoble tradition of dirty politics (actually, the Republicans played the game much better). But no, this is not a case of dirty politics. It's a morality play heading to the curtain call.
For Republicans to whine about dirty politics is akin to Catholic bishops wringing their hands over all those pedophiles in Roman collars that they tried to protect for decades.
Just a thought. ;-)

3T

Has anyone heard of Congressman Studds?
I did not think so, and that is THE problem. When republicans do something wrong, it is politicized, democrats keep kicking the dead horse that has nothing to do with politics. Foley is a perv and deserveds punishment but I don't understand how that has anything to do with politics? Of the prior reporting of Foleys contact with that other Page, that contact was no where near as obscene, and the parents asked the matter to be dropped. I see no culprit other than Foley.

You must have missed the gist of my post, and perhaps you didn't click through to the information I referenced.

I think this was BAD politics on the part of the Republicans. We now know that the leadership had been made aware of the offending email about a year ago, and that they didn't vigorously pursue it per the request of the minor and his family. If the family didn't want it pursued, hoping, I assume, to avoid the media circus, that is certainly their right and I appreciate their wished being respected. I wish, however, that they had still found a way to get Foley out of a position of power he was obviously ill equipped to handle. Perhaps they were just hoping to get him through the election and then have him resign "for personal reasons" - who knows. Once again, it is important to note, the email correspondence that the leadership was privy to is completely separate, and much less graphic and salacious, then the IM exchanges. No one in the leadership saw those until AFTER they were published in the press. There is NO ONE trying to make excuses for Foley, except Foley.

Where it becomes DIRTY politics is the fact that ABC news and others had this information nearly as long a Hastert, and just happened to publish it now - at exactly the right time to do the most damage to the campaign. If you read the timeline here, you will see the many questions about this information coming out when it did.

The explicit IMs that surfaced and got everyone in a tizzy have now been shown to be between Foley and a former page who was 18 years old at the time of the exchange. Though graphic and sexual, they are between two consenting adults - not overtures to a minor.

I don't know what you mean when you say the Republican party "controls all access to information about ITS members". That has never been the case, and never will - for either party. You definitely seem to have a black hat view of the goings on in DC.

You call Foley a dirty politician. He most certainly appears to be a dirty man, with at least a predilection to illicit sexual practices (though there is no indication he has acted on them). There has not, however, even been a suggestion (other than yours) that he is a dirty politician. From all accounts he was very good at his job; hence the almost guaranteed win, hence the amazingly timed "revelations".

As to what WickId references,

Keep in mind that Democrat Rep. Gerry Studds was re-elected five times to the House after acknowledging a sexual relationship with a male page who was a minor, receiving a censure from the House (not expulsion, as was demanded by Newt Gingrich, but voted down by the Democrat majority). The Democrats did not demand his resignation for conduct far more serious than the emails seen by the GOP leadership, and even the salacious IM’s.

I would call Democrat Rep. Gerry Studds a dirty Politician as well. For decades now, Republicans have stated that a lack of moral fiber or standards DOES play in to whether someone should be elected to office, or continue in office. (Think Bill Clinton)

It just seems there tends to be a double standard, when it is one of their own whose morals are in question.

ABC did not "sit" on the story, by the way. Actually, the first info on this came to two respectable Florida newspapers that incredibly didn't think there was a story. Their editors now admit they were not aggressive in their reporting.

As for corruption, dirt, lets do a roll call: Delay, Nye, all the folks on the Abramoff gravy train.

I can understand Republican consternation. A new AP poll of likely voters shows 72 percent of those polled are unhappy with the way Congress is run. Majorities of BOTH Dems and GOP say they're likely to vote for the Democrat in their district. A bloodbath is on its way.

I just hope the Dems then don't start being stupid and cry for Bush's impeachment, since they hopefully will know that ineptitude and stupidity are not impeachable offenses. HOWEVER, lets hope (and I pray) that they'll give Dickie Cheney a good going over because the full story of his corruption and that of his old employer is the biggest story that has yet to be told.

Apologies for misunderstanding your point, Vox. Politics is politics, and it's rarely pretty.

3T

I would say that ABC having the story and not publishing it would count on sitting on it. If it wasn't worth publishing then, it ain't worth publishing now.

I also wouldn't make the leap that having done business with someone corrupt automatically makes you corrupt. To convict anyone who ever voted the way Abramhoff preferred, or even anyone who benefited from his largess, without substantial facts to back it up is sloppy. I happen to agree with many of his points about c@sinos, but you would be unlikely to get me indicted for it.

I used to work in retail back east and had several customers I believed to be drg dealers - I absolutely took their money, and lots of it. I even opened the store on off hours just for them to have the undivided attention of their favorite sales associate. That money was probably as ill gotten as a summer day is long, but it was my job to ensure that store made a profit. I guess maybe that makes me corrupt.

I wouldn't be so fast too start the celebration, especially if you are basing it on a poll of "likely voter patterns" If they offer a line on it in Laughlin, I would call it a poor bet. But, I guess that's why they call it gambling.

"I used to work in retail back east and had several customers I believed to be drg dealers - I absolutely took their money, and lots of it. I even opened the store on off hours just for them to have the undivided attention of their favorite sales associate. That money was probably as ill gotten as a summer day is long, but it was my job to ensure that store made a profit. I guess maybe that makes me corrupt."

There's no maybe about it. Sounds like a RICO violation to me.

You, sir, laundered drug money. By your own admission.

You know, I have that picture up in the corner, I talk about my boyfriend, my weather pixie is a girl - and still people think I am a man. Though I do appreciate the respect behind calling me sir ;-)

I took money from customers, as did the grocery stores, the car dealerships, the banks, the restaurants, the gas stations..... I imagine there is illicit money channeling through our economy every day. When does the responsibility end in your chain of "laundering"? Was my company also in violation, since the profits went to them? Were the stockholders in violation? The government got taxes from it, so them, too? How about the rest of the employees in the very large chain of stores, were their paychecks a part of the scheme? And when those employees spent their earnings, were they breaking the law? And the merchants that took their money? Is it just the first person who touches it, the first 2 levels? How about if it was a dealers girlfriend spending money he gave her as a gift, am I still in violation or just her?

I treated them like I would have treated any other customer with a boatload of money and no taste.

I will not get upset that some congressmen treated Abramhoff like they treated any other lobbyist. If he was crooked, he should be punished. If they were crooked, they should be punished, as well. But you can't prove they are crooked just because they let him do his job, as they do with all the other lobbyists for all the other special interest groups - even those that the left seems to embrace.