Strengthening Constitutional Self-Government

No Left Turns

Tough Words from Maggie Gallagher

The Republicans still need to take responsibility. The Speaker should resign. AND the Democrats have behaved despicably.

Discussions - 20 Comments

Right. Let’s cause resignation before all the facts are known. Hastert should have personally been shadowing Foley, making sure he was using the correct hand to wipe his.... Facetious I know, then again so
is the rabid feeding frenzy.
So. Who knew what and when?

The Party needs to get it’s crap together and decide once and for all whether or not Hastert stays. Every hour Kudlow and NRO seem to change their minds. This is the DEM/MSM strategy and we’re playing right into it (see the Nation)

Also, great post about Steele over at Powerline. Any Republican thinking about sitting at home on November 7th should read the letter. If Nancy wins she will work the MSM circuit and say she has a mandate to investigate the President, defund the war and raise taxes. LOOK! AT HOW THE DEMS HAVE RUN THIS CAMPAIGN AGAINST STEELE AND ALLEN. Do you wany Pelosi saying she has a mandate when you know they lied, stole and cheated to get it.

Why not investigage the President?

Was it prescient to have predicted this?:

It is NOT about Foley having sex with under aged boys, nor is it about the MSM making such claims. Neither is it about Hastert, or any other Republican, being aware of Foley having sex with under aged boys, nor the MSM making any such claim. The MSM will probably get around to such inuendo, but it hasn’t...yet....

This comes from Dean Barnett at Townhall today:

(Patty) Wettering’s campaign is not only serving as the tip of the spear for the Democrats’ Foley offensive, but that the campaign’s ad has grossly distorted the facts of the Foley scandal. Her ad maintains that Foley molested children.

Was it prescient, or just a prediction of the obvious?

No one should call for anything that implies moral equivalence between Democratic ethics and Republican ethics. A resignation by Hastert fuels the scandal in the public mind; it does not put it in perspective, let alone cleanse the Republican image, which is determined by the media and by our own lack of self-confidence and inarticulateness. That said, Hastert and those of us who defend him need to aggressively attack the Democratic hypocrites and their radical overstatement of 1) the scandal’s significance; and 2) the culpability of anyone but Foley. If we don’t, we do look bad.

Yes, Mister Frisk, I’m sure that if one of your kids had been working in Foley’s office you’d say that this scandal’s significance had been overstated.

I wonder how Monica Lewinsky’s parents felt. Hmm...

It’s really not so relevant how Lewinsky’s parents felt, as she was an independent adult, 22 years old, when she first met Clinton.

Yea, that sure let’s him off the hook, now doesn’t it? As I recall, the Left was just peachy with Clinton...I remember some dumb woman saying she’d buy knee-pads...only his politics mattered.

You Lefties can’t even PRETEND to have the moral highground here...it’s laughable...really.

Oh, please. This is beyond tiresome. I point out the obvious difference between Clinton’s actions and those apparently committed by Foley, and suddenly I’m a Clinton supporter and fan. Look, there’s a difference between taking advantage of one’s position of power and using it to commit adultery with a young woman who’s above the legal age of consent, and abusing one’s position of power to engage in sexually suggestive and provocative virtual discussions with pages who are under the age of consent. Now, I won’t argue with you if you want to say that age of consent is, to some extent, random and arbitrary, but that would seem unavoidable in determining legal boundaries based on moral limits generally agreed upon by society. But if you want to treat the matter so that a 22-year-old is a "minor" when Clinton (D) engages in consensual sexual acts with them, but a 16-year-old is an adult if Foley (R) is suggesting/harrassing/soliciting, well, that’s just silly. Clinton may well have committed impeachable offenses while in office, but nothing about the Lewinsky affair qualified.

Also, seeing that a) I am not a Democrat and don’t work for or represent the party and b) that I have never sent an e-mail or IM to anyone asking them what state of arousal their genitalia is in, then I would say that yes, I do have the moral high ground here - compared to the Foley defenders... And seeing that some women find Cheney and Rumsfeld to be so attractive, I’m sure it’s possible that there are ALSO women out there who would gladly "buy knee-pads" if they could have the perverse privilege of an illicit affair with President Bush.

So, if you aren’t a Clintonista or any other stripe of Dhimmicrat, what the hell are you, trollboy? And I wasn’t referring just to Clinton...I was referring to such things as the Dhimmicrats’ support for abortion without parental consent, gay rights, etc. When it comes to sexual liberation, you folks are the tip of the spear!

Or, at least the Dhimmicrats are...don’t know about you, Ugluk. I do know this, however. Regardless of "the age of consent," if your trollings are ever taken advantage of by a person of authority you are going to be mad.

The issue here isn’t "age of consent," it’s sexual harassment and inappropriate sexual behavior in office, and people like Clinton and Barney Frank were just as guilty as Foley...but the Dhimmicrats didn’t have much to say about them.

Once again, dain’s definition of troll seems to be "Person who dares to disagree with dain."

It’s hard to believe you can’t see the difference between asking a 16 year old what method of mastubation he uses and engaging in a sexual act with a consenting ADULT. I’m not a huge Clinton fan either, but at least I feel like I could trust him with a minor.

I guess I’m probably being far too charitable to respond to someone who just can’t let go of the name-calling schtick (Clintonista, Dhimmicrat, Ugluk, trollboy, trollings, etc.), but here goes.

"And I wasn’t referring just to Clinton...I was referring to such things as the Dhimmicrats’ support for abortion without parental consent, gay rights, etc."

Really, you were referring to all of those things when you made the quip about Monica Lewinsky’s parents (comment 7) or when you brought up Clinton’s sex life and the unnamed knee-pad lady (comment 9)? I guess I’m not able to detect the depth that apparently exists in your posts.

Now that I pointed out the clear difference (further detailed by Phil Thompson) between Clinton’s dalliance and Foley’s behavior, you are now tossing Barney Frank into the mix (let me guess, you were also referring to his scandal when you mentioned Lewinsky’s parents in comment 7); someone whose behavior I have not mentioned, described or defended. This started as a comparison between Clinton and Foley and now you seem to be changing the parameters. In any case, the difference that I have clarified between the Clinton and the Foley matters is precisely why Clinton was NOT "just as guilty as Foley." Do you have some evidence of Clinton pursuing sex with minors? (I’m almost afraid to ask because I suppose the same people who had "evidence" of Clinton being a serial rapist, a murderer, or someone who sold cocaine out of the trunk of his car (etc.) might also have "evidence" of Clinton running a child prostitution ring.)

Oh, a double post by Phraig! Or is it Cril? The "pedaphile" angle isn’t going to resonant with the Right...it’s the gay sex/intern angle that matters.

Now, that Democrat, that Studds guy. Exactly how old was that page he dallied with...and more importantly, what did the Democrat Party do about it? Refresh my memory.

It’s odd to me that up until this week I’d never heard of Congressman Studds, and a name like that tends to get press in a sex scandal. There was no Wikipedia entry for him yesterday. Does anyone who reads this remember the guy, or is it all coming from blog comments?

I remember it, sort of (I was in high school then).Here’s what Time wrote about it in 1983.

When dain’s Clinton argument is exposed for being weak and off-topic, he switches gears and throws in Barney Frank. When that doesn’t work, he reaches way back to the 1970s and brings up a scandal involving a Democrat (as well as a Republican) that really isn’t the same because the Speaker of the House didn’t know about it and choose to keep a lid on it.

I guess I can’t expect any favors of the guy, but I’ll still ask- could the mysterious "Death’s Jester" make a return appearance and inform dain that Craig and I are not the same person? Not that dain will believe anything that he doesn’t want to believe. "More than one person who disagrees with me?? Impossible!!!"

I’ve never abandoned the "Clinton analogy." Indeed, I think it was MORE reprehensible that whatever Foley did.

And I think you, Craig and Abbie are all the same idiot. Perhaps you are simply schizophrenic? Maybe you really believe you are three separate people...truly sad.

Dain, Dain, Dain. Keep bringing up Lewinsky and I’ll have to conclude you see sex with children as no different than sex with adults. Really, that line is not doing the right any favors.

While I’m at it, the other factor that Foley-philes seem to forget is even Studds wasn’t in charge of setting Anti-Pedophile policies for the nation. This is like discovering that Alberto Gonzales is actually Scarface.

Danny, Danny, Danny...can’t you see that the Right has grown to expect these "surprises?" W’s drunk driving record from the 1970s...forged Air National Guard documents...the list goes on. We’ll weather this, and I predict it will backfire on the sleezy Left, just as those other attempts did. You people are vanquished...you just haven’t realized it yet. So sad.

As for Foley, he sinned, he paid. ’Nuff said in my book...unlike Democrats, we won’t reelect him over and over again as if nothing happened.

Leave a Comment

* denotes a required field
 

No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL: http://nlt.ashbrook.org/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/9095