There are many of us who do not think "swiftboating" is a perjorative term. In fact, IMHO, the swiftboaters of the last election cycle were great patriots who helped protect us from disaster.

With the unbelievably gigantic scandals currently exploding all around the Republican party, of course all Fox "News" and you toads want to talk about is... a kerfuffle that happened in 70's?

Only because this man wants to be spaeker and run fron conflict in Iraq aaaaaaaaaron.

HOLMAN:Well, they didn't just want favors. They actually wanted private asylum bills for these sheiks in the Congress. And they were willing to pay $50,000, at least, apiece for that.Although what was specifically being discussed right there was that Murtha would get a cut of the $50,000 being offered not only to him but to other congressmen.

Muslim sheiks.
Post-9/11.
War on Terror/Islam.
Murtha was considering taking a bribe from Muslim sheiks to grant them favors and private asylum bills in Congress at some time in the future.

Devastating.

I'd question Murtha's patriotism, but he doesn't have any.

Aarontime...Foley acted like a gay Democrat like Barney Franks.

Why is this bad...you guys always supported this behavior in the past.

Hyprocrite

Aarontime.

I guess you want the news to be 24/7 Foley. I know it's hard for you libtards to focus on more then 1 thing at a time, but the world does keep moving. Oh, you better watch for things exploding around your party pretty soon.

warriorboy -

uh, being gay is not the same as being a pedophile, ya dingleberry. In fact, I'm sure if you looked at the stats, you would see a higher incidence of pedophilia among straight males than gay. In any case, you're an idiot.

And pedophilia is not brought on by having too much to drink! Foley is trying to take the old dodge of checking into an alcohol rehab clinic. sheesh - his problem isn't with 12 year old Scotch - it's with 12 year old boys!

Have any of these Pages actually complained or are they just reporting some creepy guy was hitting on them?
Did any of them take him up on his offer?

Have any of these Pages actually complained or are they just reporting some creepy guy was hitting on them?

Yes. One page complained to R. Alexander after he got a request from Foley for a pic with "sick, sick, sick, sick, sick, sick, sick, sick, sick, sick, sick, sick, sick"

13 times typing "sick" sure sounds like complaining to me.

Aarontime...a pedophile? You're right, it's not the same. Then again, it's obvious you don't understand the definition of pedophile either.

"In contrast to the generally accepted medical and sociological definitions, the term pedophile is also used colloquially to denote significantly older adults who are sexually attracted to adolescents below the local age of consent,[1] as well as those who have sexually abused a child."

The age of consent in D.C. is 16 years of age, so strike one for you.

Can you prove there was any sex at all between Foley and a minor...you know, like Gerry Studds, Democrat did with a 17 year old male page when he was in Congress (and yet didn't resign, and yet the Dems didn't ask Tip O'Neill to resign either).

So apparently you don't know your ass from head which isn't surprising at all. The hypocrisy of the left continues unabated.

No sex at all took place IDIOT!! I don't condone his actions, I'm glad that guy is gone. He's gay and probably should just declare himself a Democrat.

What is sad is this ridiculous notion on the part of the left and the media that they are "outraged" by the GOP leadership for not protecting the kids.

Please. The left and the media has known about this since AT LEAST last November and did nothing with it. Why weren't they protecting the kids? Instead they waited until just before an election. Pathetic.

Willhelm

Why did the Dems and the media sit on this for at least a year if not longer...why weren't they protecting the kids?

We would all like to know this...apparently politics on the part of the Dems was more important than protecting these kids.

When President Bush took office in January 2001:

DOW was at 10.578.24
It had declined almost 10% from its high during the last year of the Clinton Presidency. As of today, the Dow Industrials stands 10.8% above when Bush took office. In spite of 9-11, Enron/Tyco/etc malfeasance...

NASDAQ was at 2757.91 when Bush took office, and had lost almost half of its value from the top of the Internet bubble, and was still in rapid retreat. By the end of March 2001, less than 6 weeks after Clinton left office, the bubble finally had lost most of its air and the Nasdaq stood at about 1820. Clearly nothing Bush did in less than 6 weeks caused that continued drop.

Today, we are at a level of 2246, almost 25% above the bubble burst bottom. (There was a later 9-11 bottom as well).

Interesting video.
Transcript:

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Let me ask you now we're here together, I was under the impression, OK, and I told Howard we were willing to pay. And OK, I went out and got the fifty thousand. From what you're telling me, OK, you're telling me that's not what, you know, that that's not what you...

MURTHA: I'm not interested.

Interesting. Murtha was not interested

Sorry Willem...keep playing the video where he then says he would be interested....don't cut it off so early junior.

Why did the Dems and the media sit on this for at least a year if not longer...why weren't they protecting the kids?

You mean Fox News? They got the first set of e-mail messages too. Unlike the Republican leadership, the Media did not have daily access to pages; they were not aware of the rumours among the pages that there was a Congressman hitting on young pages; etc. The Media acted overly cautious. When ABC News however decided to reported on it after the e-mails were posted at a blog, it took only *several hours* for other pages to come forward with their stories.
When the Republican leadership had taken these e-mails more serious and had gone to past and present pages, no doubt it would have taken them only *several hours* to reveal Foley's behaviour.

Dems didn't have any info on this. The other two members of the Page board (one republican, one democrat) weren't even informed about the first set of e-mails.

You mean the part "maybe I'll be interested, maybe I won't"?

Wow. Damning.

Nope Wilhelm...I mean the St. Petersburg Time, the Miami Herald. I mean ABC News. I mean a whole bunch of them.

This from the NY Times, your favorite communist paper...note LAST NOVEMBER

"Wrote the Times reporters: "At least two news organizations were tipped off to e-mail messages sent by Representative Mark Foley long before the story of his sexually explicit remarks to teenage pages broke last week and forced him to resign. The St. Petersburg Times and The Miami Herald received copies of an e-mail exchange between Mr. Foley, Republican of Florida, and a teenager, but neither paper gathered enough solid material to publish a story, according to statements by the papers’ editors... At the same time, the papers’ decisions not to report the accusations are being cited by Republican leaders as justification for why they themselves did not step forward earlier to try to stop Mr. Foley. 'He deceived his in-state newspaper when they each questioned him,' Speaker J. Dennis Hastert said Tuesday. 'He deceived me, too.'

"The St. Petersburg Times said that last November, it received copies of an e-mail exchange between Mr. Foley and a former page from Louisiana. The newspaper said the boy, who was under age, did not want his name used, and the paper said it did not want to publish accusations based on unnamed sources."

Right Warrior. You do understand the phrase "at least" I guess?

This is from AP:

Both The St. Petersburg Times and The Miami Herald were given copies of the e-mail, as were other news organizations, including Fox News.

Annoying. Isn't it?

You're right...very damning. This is the guy that wants a leadership position in the US Congress and he says he might be interested in taking a bribe.

Typical of a left wing lunatic with no moral or scruples to yawn at this.

And listening to Murtha say it is even better than reading it black and white because you get to hear the emotion and the way it was delivered.

Damn right its a serious issue.

Yes. Congressmen interested in taking bribes is unacceptable *cough* Abramoff *cough* K-street *cough* Delay *cough*

Spin away Wilhelm...why did the Dems and the Media not care about the kids? LAST NOVEMBER? OUCH!!

Henry Reid (D)...cough...James Trafficant (D) in prison..cough...Dan Rostenkowski (D)..cough....cough, cough, cough.

I thought you were all for cleaing up the corruption Wilhelm..so surely you would be for Murtha getting the boot.

I forgot to mention current Dem William Jefferson...cough...90,000 in bribes in his freezer...cough.

Of course he was not asked to resign because the party of utter blatant hypocrisy...the JACK ASS party with a Jack Ass mascot didn't feel it was warranted.

Oh the hypocritical irony.

"LAST NOVEMBER? OUCH!!"

You did read my earlier reply now did you?

Both The St. Petersburg Times and The Miami Herald were given copies of the e-mail, as were other news organizations, including Fox News.

Fox News. OUCH!!

Did read this article from Washington Post?

In 1995, male House pages were warned to steer clear of a freshman Republican from Florida, who was already learning the names of the teenagers, dashing off notes, letters and e-mails to them, and asking them to join him for ice cream, according to a former page.

Mark Beck-Heyman, now a graduate student in clinical psychology at George Washington University, and more than a dozen other former House pages said in interviews and via e-mail that Rep. Mark Foley was known to be extraordinarily friendly in a way that made some of them uncomfortable.

1995. OUCH!! ELEVEN YEARS!!

WaPo article here

warrior -

"The age of consent in D.C. is 16 years of age, so strike one for you."...

"No sex at all took place IDIOT!!"

ah, so since no law was actually broken in making lewd conversation with a 16 year old, then it is OK? Do you think a sick tool like Foley is really drawing the line at 16 years, just to be legal? There are lots of House pages who are 14 and 15 years old - do you think he would never attempt sexually explicit contact with any of them? I guess that means you wouldn't mind having your 14, 15, or 16 year old son or daughter working around Foley?

Remember: you goobers were gleeful that a sitting President was impeached for getting a BJ from another consenting adult. Now one of your own gets caught making vile and disgusting overtures to minors, with the full knowledge of the House Republican leadership, and you want to tell us "well, the age of consent in DC is 16"? Lame.

And finally, warrior Bushbot, how do you know "NO SEX" took place? You think Foley was just content to send emails and IM's to minors while only jacking off in his office? You think he *only* fantasized, but would never actually do any of the things he drooled about in those messages? Foley and at least one minor had a trip together in San Diego. In one of the messages, he talks about giiving the minor a massage "like the one in San Diego". But *you're* sure no sex took place? Riiiight.

Look, the House Repubs have two options. Either they can vote to remove their entire leadership now, or they can wait to have the Democrats do it after they take over the majority.

Only in America is ORAL SEX not sex according to Democrats, but Instant Messages talking about sex are

Only in deranged America

Let me re-iterate...

Of course, to a good liberal like Alan Colmes (if there really is such a thing as a good liberal), swiftboating is any criticism of any left-wing idealogue who happened to don a uniform. Even if that criticism is justified. After all, to the liberal democrats, anyone that had ever donned a uniform and agrees with them is a sacred commodity, not to be assailed. Not that liberals really have any respect for those in uniform. Many of them would just as soon spit on a soldier as salute one. But the left does see military vets, past and present, as the currency and cover they need to avoid just scrutiny over their whacked-out, unworkable agenda.

And Aaron, why is it that Tip O'Neill didn't resign after Congressman Studds known sex exploitation of a 17-year old page?

Why was Studds merely "censored" for his actions?

Has the democrat sense of morality changed since then?

Aarontime....can you please tell us why Tip O'Neill was not removed from office when Gerry Studds (DEMOCRAT) bent over his page (17 years old) and had sex with him (something Foley DIDN'T)?

Better yet, can you tell us why STUDDS wasn't removed or resigned himself from Congress?

Thanks....apparently we conservatives need to follow your liberal examples and that's the example you guys gave.

Please advise, we are all waiting.

Psy...apparently they don't want us to follow their own examples.

Strange, considering how corrupt and morally unethical they claim us to be. They didn't force out their leader, but they want Hastert to go (even though Foley didn't have sex). Hmmmm.

How about Barney Frank...the Dem Congress didn't even censure him even though he was allowing a prostitution ring to be run out of his congressional office and home.

Nope, instead Frank not only wasn't removed, not only was Tip O'Neill not removed, but instead the Dems keep voting for Frank every other year.

The hypocrisy of the left knows NO BOUNDS!

Vote Democrat. Vote for Change

Today, America stands at a crossroads.

The Dow Industrial Average is trading at an all-time, dangerous high.

The nation's unemployment rate holds steady at 4.6%, and dozens of Americans are without work.

More Americans own homes than ever before, creating substandard, hand-to-mouth living conditions for the nation's apartment managers and slumlords.

Middle class tax cuts have given most Americans more money than they know what to do with. The result? Ugly Bluetooth cell phones sticking out of people's ears, and the rise of a dangerous new generation of Elmo dolls, TMX Elmo.

Finally, low gas prices spell even more danger for Mother Earth. As the unnatural lack of hurricanes this season proves, global warming is a bigger threat than ever.

What can the average American do in these uncertain times?

The answer is simple.

They can vote for change. They can vote Democrat.

Today's new and improved Democratic party can end the dangerous and risky stock boom. They can bring the price of your home down, so that even the least fortunate American can afford to buy it. They can increase the price of gas and save Mother Earth. And of course, they can raise taxes on all Americans so no Americans can afford Bluetooth again.

And, perhaps most importantly, returning Congress to Democrats will ensure that the urban cores of our greatest cities - New York, Philadelphia, Boston, San Francisco - will be quickly and efficiently rebuilt after al Queda destroys them with dirty bombs and backpack nukes.

So this November, just say "Hell no!" to the risky Republican policies that have brought us to the brink of unknown and uncharted economic territory.

Vote Democrat, and return us to the good old days, when enlightened minds like Jimmy Carter steered our great nations economic and foreign policy, and Bill Clinton gave us moral codes any American could follow.

Vote Democrat and together we can all find out what "Blue America" really means.

Psycmeister -

A few things to note:

1) The dirty SOB's in congress unfortunately have a long history of sweeping this sort of thing under the rug, especially before elections. Seems that given the choice between winning elections and doing the ethical thing, politicians choose winning elections everytime. It's terrible, and the party in power who engages in that kind of activity should resign or be voted out, be they democrat or republican.

Having said all of that, lets make note of a few more things:

2) In bringing up Studds/O'Neil, you are referring to a scandal that came to a head in 1982, nearly a quarter of a century ago. Studds is long retired, and O'Neill is long dead. Is that the best defense you can muster? - that something similar happened decades ago? I think most voters are more interested in what is happening now in Congress.

3) At the very same time O'Neill ignored and swept under the rug the situation with Studds (reprehensible, yes), Republican Daniel Crane was known by the Republican leadership to have been having an affair with an underage page. They too hid the sordid goings on. Shame on both sides of the aisle.

4) Republicans have cast themselves in the last few election cycles as the party of moral values. Indeed, were it not for the strong support Republicans have solicited from evangelicals, it is doubtful Mr Bush would have made it over the hump in key, closely contested states. So besides being reprehensible, the sweeping of this under the rug by Republicans particularly smacks of hypocrisy. If you are going to constantly parade around on a moral high horse, you should be held to a higher moral standard. Maybe evangelicals will finally wake up to the simple fact that the Bushicons are merely pandering for their votes, while privately having other priorities (like corporate welfare).

5) Adding double hypocritical insult to double injury, Foley co-chaired the caucus on missing and exploited children. Now, it is bad enough when either party hides misdeeds until after an election. But to have a known child predator in charge of a congressional caucus on child predators?? I think we have to invent a whole new language to describe the heights of hypocrisy and irony involved there.

So what you are saying is that Republicans and Conservatives are held to a higher standard....eh Aarontime?

And that my friends is what this is about.

warmongernation -

Look, Foley dedicated almost his entire career in congress to crusading against predators who ensnare children on the internet. Glenn Greenwald has a great analysis of the laws Foley helped enact:

"When this scandal first broke, I spent a few hours researching federal law with regard to Internet sexual activities and "minors" and, while I knew that Foley was involved in enacting some of these bills, I was really amazed how far beyond that it went. Mark Foley was literally at the center of virtually every activity and law and program over the last 10 years ostensibly designed to battle the evils of Internet sex and minors. Mark Foley spent 12 years in Congress and it is not an exaggeration to say that he basically devoted his whole Congressional career to adding decades of imprisonment on to the mandatory punishments for those who use the Internet to talk about sex with children. He didn't just condemn that which he was doing. He made the crusade against it his life's work, in the most vocal and public way possible."

So yeah, a guy who spends so much time in congress trying to pile on extra years of jail time for Internet child predators should at least, you know, NOT be an internet child predator himself. Or is that too high a standard? As far as this continual Republican penchant for moral crusades, Glenn has some more interesting observations:

"Mark Foley isn't some isolated case of shocking hypocrisy. Quite the contrary. People who have a publicly and vocally expressed obsession with other people's moral behavior and who want to use the power of the Government to enforce that obsession -- the Rick Santorums and Rush Limbaughs and Newt Gingrichs and Jim Bakkers and Ralph Reeds and Mark Foleys of the world -- are almost always fighting their own demons, not anyone else's. It is so important for them to parade around as moral protectors and moral warriors precisely because they have no other way to cleanse themselves, despite being in desperate need of a cleansing."

Of course, Glenn failed to mention Mr Moral Grand Pooh Bah himself, Bill Bennett - who made millions lecturing people on morality with the likes of the oh so morally superior than thou book "The Book of Virtues" - who gambled away his millions in slot machines while getting sloshed by himself in his hotel room.

Lets see: the Bushicons ignored ample threat warnings baout al-qaeda, diverted us into a disasterous war with a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, totally bungled the post-war planning for said bogus war, totally bungled the response to Katrina, have done virtually nothing to secure our ports and borders because doing so would upset their corporate masters, and have run up the largest deficits in US history. And now, on top of all that, they are proving that all their moral grandstanding is a nothing but a perverted joke.

Aren't these some of the most important issues to true conservatives? Aren't true conservatives mostly concerned with national security, a robust military, avoiding foreign quagmires, competent responsiveness during times of emergency, fiscal responsibility, and moral rectitude? I have long understood why democrats wouldn't vote for the Bush movement - but at this point I have no idea why conservatives would vote for the Bush movement either.

So he wasn't underage....ouch, that's going to hurt.

Aarontime, are you sure Tip O'Neill had swept anything "under the rug"? Gerry Studds had had a sexual relationship with a 17-year-old male page in 1973. O'Neill was elected Speaker in 1977.

The House page-scandal broke in 1982 when CBS aired a report where two anonymous former pages claimed they were victims of sexual abuse by members of Congress. Rumors where flying and the House, led by Tip O'Neill, ordered a full investigation of "sexual misconduct, illicit drug distribution and use, and offers of preferential treatment in exchange for sexual favors or drugs by Members, officers or employees of the House."

During the investigation, the two pages testified under oath that they had lied to CBS. However, the investigation had already uncovered several instances of misconduct. Among other things, Studds and Crane having sexual relationships with 17 year old pages. Instances of improper - but not criminal - conduct.

Joseph A. Califano Jr. - special counsel to the ethics committee during that investigation - wrote the following today in the Washington Post:

The course the House took in that scandal, and its reaction to the current one, show the difference between a leadership that saw a threat to the integrity of the House of Representatives and one that sees a threat to its continuing control of the institution. It's useful today to remember that there was a time when partisanship took second place to trust and the House leadership had the strength to wash its own dirty laundry.

How about Barney Frank...the Dem Congress didn't even censure him even though he was allowing a prostitution ring to be run out of his congressional office and home.

He did not "allow" this and certainly not from his congressional office. When Frank found out that Steve Gobie had conducted a prostitution ring from his apartment when he was not at home, he dismissed Gobie.

At the end of the day it's the same old song and dance from the Dems.

DO AS WE SAY, NOT AS WE DO (OR HAVE DONE)

Oh please Wilhelm, he absolutely let Gobie run it from his apartment with his knowledge of the situation.

Isn't it funny, you want us to believe your version...oh how delicious the irony is there.

As far as Studds goes, the Dems were in control of Congress and no one asked for the leader of the House to step down nor did they ask Studds to step down.

The Dems are at the HEIGHT of hypocrisy.

This from the WaPost today....says it all

Republicans whose personal sex-related scandalous behavior was exposed who resigned or did not run for reelection: Mark Foley (Congress - 2006), Bob Livingston (Congress/Speaker of the House Designate - 1998), Bob Packwood (Senate - 1995).

Republicans who lost subsequent reelection races or who ended political campaigns when personal sex-related scandalous behavior was exposed: Thomas Evans (Congress - 1982, lost in 1982); Bill Crane (Congress - 1983, lost in 1984); Jack Ryan (IL Gubernatorial Candidate - 2004, dropped out).

Republicans whose political careers survived personal sex-related scandalous behavior: NONE.

Democrats whose personal sex-related scandalous behavior was exposed who resigned or did not run for reelection: Wayne Hays (Congress - 1976); Wilbur Mills (mid-1970s, forced out of Way and Means Committee chairmanship, but was re-elected by voters after scandal exposed; did not run for re-election after "relapse"). (Aside: The WaPo article gives the casual reader the impression tha Mills resigned from office, but he never did. He only resigned from Ways and Means.)

Democrats who lost subsequent reelection race or who ended political campaigns when personal sex-related scandalous behavior was exposed: Gary Condit (Congress - 2002, but more because of his possible association with Chandra Levy's murder than the affair he may have had with her); Gary Hart (1988, but ONLY AFTER being rejected by New Hampshire primary voters).

Democrats whose political careers were uninterrupted despite personal sex-related scandalous behavior being exposed: Gary Studds (Congress - 1983; served until retirement in 1996); Barney Frank (Congress - 1985; still in Congress); Jim Bates (Congress - early 1990s; re-elected once); Bill Clinton (President - 1998-1999; despite impeachment for lying under oath and obstruction of justice, completed second presidential term).

Warrior: in all those cases, the leadership of the Democratic Party did not try to cover up the misconduct. Hastert, Reynolds, Shimkus

And to the notion that no Republican survived a sex-scandal. Boo Hoo Hoo. Who is making all the fuss about sex and ‘family values’? When you can't walk the talk, this is what you deserve.

As far as Studds goes, the Dems were in control of Congress and no one asked for the leader of the House to step down nor did they ask Studds to step down.

Because the leader of the House was not implicated in the matter. Hastert most certainly is. From the statement from Fordham today:

The fact is, even prior to the existence of the Foley email exchanges I had more than one conversation with senior staff at the highest levels of the House of Representatives asking them to intervene when I was informed of Mr. Foley's inappropriate behavior.

One of these staffers is still employed by a Senior House Republican Leader.

Rather than trying to shift the blame on me, those who are employed by these House Leaders should acknowledge what they know about their action or inaction in response to the information they knew about Mr. Foley prior to 2005.

Wilhelm, you are in denial. Go back and read the records of the 1970's and stop being such a liberal hack job.

You know how bad it was, Studds got THREE (not one, not two, but THREE) STANDING OVATIONS by the Democrats after the vote to Censure. Apparently those three standing ovations were for what exactly Willy? For drilling the 17 year old in the ass and still keeping his job?

What a complete joke you people are. Seriously, you are sick people.

Studds got THREE (not one, not two, but THREE) STANDING OVATIONS by the Democrats after the vote to Censure.

Wrong, that's a myth created this week in freeperville. Studds did not receive standing ovations. The ethics committee voted 11-1 for censuring Studds and Crane. That implies strong Democratic support for censuring.

Find me one reliable source for this myth.

A myth....WRONG Willehelm the liar.

He got a STANDING FRIGGIN OVATION from the House Democrats.

Congressman Jack Kingston..."Democrat Gerry Studds however stood by his relationship with a 17-year-old boy, refused to apologize, and even turned his back and ignored the official House censure being read to him. His Democratic colleagues gave him a standing ovation and even voted for him to chair a Congressional Committee."

It's all over the web...please, stop with your spinning and defending the morally corrupt Democrats.