Scott Nokes, in a comment below, makes a valid point in regards to the charge that the revelations about Foley were orchestrated ins some fashion by the Democrats or some ally of the party. Let me be clear: I agree with Scott that if someone had this information on Foley and withheld it for political gain then this would be a very serious action (indeed, if any adult had the information and sat on it, then there’s a serious problem). Yes, there would be the “dirty tricks” angle that would have its own political impact. However, the more serious element would be that someone knew about Foley’s predilections and did ignored those facts for political gain. If such information emerges, then the persons responsible will have Hell to pay.
The reason I have downplayed that angle, however, is twofold. First, as I have noted, even if the revelations were the result of “dirty tricks” that still does not absolve Foley nor does it wash clean Haster, Boerhner, Reynolds, Shimkus, Fordham and friends. Second, because there has been not one shred of evidence that there were any “dirty tricks” I see no reason to take the charge as anything more than a diversionary tactics by hardcore partisans who can only see this is terms of how it effects the November elections.
Indeed, given the lack of evidence, and the seriousness of the charges, I would argue that those who are making those charges need to reassess their position until such a time as they something more than mere suspicion based primarily on partisan identification.
Until such a time that there is evidence of trickery, I will continue to be dismissive of that line of “argument.”
And, btw, I am not asserting that Scott is making such an argument, but rather and agreeing with his point that such charges are serious. He makes some additional valid points on this issue here.
Well the pedophile allegation is false, he, the page, was in fact 18, so now Foley is gay not a pedophile. So I thought the Demos were in favor of gay rights and privacy?
http://drudgereport.com/flashmfa.htm
http://drudgereport.com/flashmfa.htm
Comment by c.v. — Thursday, October 5, 2024 @ 1:26 pm
I am not sure that “pedophile” was ever the right term.
Regardless, that one of the persons involved was 18 doesn’t really change all that much–we are talking about multiple persons.
That Foley is guilty seems pretty clear: he resigned far, far too quickly for the situation to be otherwise.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Thursday, October 5, 2024 @ 1:31 pm
You wrote:
“Indeed, given the lack of evidence, and the seriousness of the charges, I would argue that those who are making those charges need to reassess their position until such a time as they something more than mere suspicion based primarily on partisan identification.”
I think that’s exactly right. Any charges that someone knew and sat on it, or knew and covered it up, had better be backed up by some serious evidence, rather than dark mutterings about how rascally the opposition is. These are serious charges.
That is also, by the way, why I’m more hesitant to condemn Hastert’s handling of the initial e-mails (though I’m hardly a fan of Hastert, and would like to see him removed from leadership for other reasons) — given the very serious nature of the charges, I could see how he could want to dismiss the reports of overly-friendly e-mails as innuendo, especially if he thought he knew Foley well enough to feel sure that the innuendo was groundless.
Comment by Richard Nokes — Thursday, October 5, 2024 @ 1:48 pm
**World Exclusive**
**Must Credit the DRUDGE REPORT**
According to two people close to former congressional page Jordan Edmund, the now famous lurid AOL Instant Message exchanges that led to the resignation of Mark Foley were part of an online prank that by mistake got into the hands of enemy political operatives, the DRUDGE REPORT can reveal… Developing…
Comment by c.v. — Thursday, October 5, 2024 @ 1:52 pm
Chris,
If it was all a prank, why did Foley resign and why hasn’t his attorney made such claims, rather than all of this being about alcohol and Foley’s abuse by a priest? Plus, the whole thing is clearly not about one incident.
And Drudge has very little credibility with me on this one, given that earlier in the week he was trying to blame the pages rather than Foley.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Thursday, October 5, 2024 @ 2:20 pm
Scott,
Such was my initial reaction (in re: Hastert’s actions). My problem is that there appears to have been ample information available, had it been looked for, and yet no serious attempt was made to see if the information did exist.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Thursday, October 5, 2024 @ 2:22 pm
Because he was seen as DOA in his district. As far as Foley, Demo or Rep, in today’s culture you have to have an excuse for your actions, which is a way in which someone just passes the buck. I am not going to defend the actions of Foley but this whole deal smells as another Democrat smoke screen. No ideas on the issues so just smear the competition.
Comment by c.v. — Thursday, October 5, 2024 @ 3:25 pm