Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
Cal  Thomas :: Townhall.com Columnist
Scandal? What scandal?
by Cal Thomas
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


In the media accounts of Florida Republican Congressman Mark Foley's resignation from the House over allegations of sexually explicit e-mails between himself and House pages, one frequently encounters the word "disgraced" modifying Foley's name and "scandal" to describe his behavior.

These are moral words, created for the purpose of labeling aberrant (and abhorrent) behavior. To show how far we have drifted from any sociological, not to mention theological moorings, consider these definitions from dictionary.com: "aberrant: departing from the right, normal, or usual course"; abhorrent: "causing repugnance; detestable; loathsome."

Right? Normal? Detestable? People who mock such notions ask, "According to whom?" Public schools, popular culture and editorialists at major newspapers have hammered into us this aversion to trans-generational morality. They proclaim that one person's concept and definition of "right" is as valid as another person's and to assert that there is only one right, one normal and one course is to be "judgmental" or "bigoted," attitudes modernity considers a worse "sin" than the behavior that used to be called sinful.

Our sophisticated age demands we not recoil at aberrant behavior, or call it abhorrent. The anti-moral wrecking ball has caused enough damage to our foundations that what remains of a structure is no longer recognizable. NBC edits positive references to God before broadcasting "Veggie Tales," but refuses to edit Madonna's blasphemous depiction of herself on a cross. These decisions are made by the network's "standards and practices" office, which mocks the words because clearly there remain few standards to which practices may be conformed.

Behavior once thought shameful is now paraded openly and promoted proudly to sell books. Former New Jersey Democratic Governor James McGreevey tours the talk show circuit. His presence dares anyone to question the legitimacy of his dumping two wives and having sex with men. He apologizes for his extramarital sexual relations and for putting people on the state payroll that didn't belong there, but he has no intention of changing his behavior.

Bill Clinton has recovered from sex with an intern in the White House and impeachment. He doesn't suffer for having practiced aberrant behavior. Few see him as having disgraced himself. Clinton takes in six figures on the lecture circuit and enjoys rock star status wherever he goes.

Former Congressman Gerry Studds (D-MA) may have started this decline (or did he merely reflect declining morality?). Studds had an affair in the early '80s with a 17-year-old male page. Studds was censured by the House, but famously turned his back to the Speaker in an act of disrespect and rejection of the judgment by his colleagues. He refused to resign and was re-elected to several more terms. A homosexual organization donated $10,000 to his campaign.

Rep. Daniel B. Crane, (R-Ill) had an affair more than two decades ago with a 17-year-old female page. After apologizing, he said he hadn't violated his oath of office, hoped his wife and children would forgive him and announced plans to run for re-election.

We all have what theologians call a "fallen" nature and no one should judge himself (or herself) morally superior to others. But that does not mean the standard for "right" behavior should be eliminated simply because many appear unwilling to conform to that standard.

In his classic, "The Abolition of Man," C.S. Lewis observed three generations ago that we are engaged in a type of tragic-comedy: "Šwe continue to clamour for those very qualities we are rendering impossible. Š In a sort of ghastly simplicity we remove the organ and demand the function. We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honour and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful."

Scandal? Disgrace? I think not. Foley and others could only be so labeled if popular culture condemned, rather than promoted, immorality. Oh, sorry, there I go again, appealing to a discarded standard.

We do laugh at honor and as a result we do find traitors in our midst. We also mock conventions and then are surprised when some take us seriously and respond as if there are none. Congressman Foley can look forward to talk show fame and a lucrative book deal. Welcome to America, 2006!

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Cal Thomas is co-author (with Bob Beckel) of the book, "Common Ground: How to Stop the Partisan War That is Destroying America".
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Cal Thomas' column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Moral Hypocrisy

Cal has lost his moral compass.

Foley is an abomination ... as are the other pedophiles who got away with it.

Please, no moral lectures from a columnist who argues like a wayward child: "But all the other kids do it."

Princples SHOULD be above partisanship.

Cal's Point
That exactly is Cal's point. a large segment of society has adopted moral relativism.

We wouldn't need this sarcasm if it were
not true. Disappointing and disgusting, but true. Seeing McGreevey all over is amoral. I don't CARE what his prediliction is... you don't have sordid affairs with strangers - while married with children - AND BRAG ABOUT IT. That is amoral, without morals.

Everyone who KNEW about this and let it continue should lose office and NOT be able to be re-elected.

But, I understand Cal's sarcasm. It won't happen.

Criminal Pervert, not pedophile
Yes, there's a difference. Look it up.

As for Cal's column, it's right on with the exception of Foley making the talk show circuit or getting any book deals.

He's a Republican, albeit a disgraceful one, and being a pervert is only a virtue if one is a Democrat. If he doesn't end up in prison, he'll be under a rock somewhere--probably trying to pick up another teenager. (prepubertal is pedophilia)

O tempora! O mores!
Perhaps Thomas is right for a change. When George W. Bush can openly espouse the use of secret prisons, Star Chamber tribunals, and torture of prisoners without attracting universal condemnation, our moral compass has certainly gone adrift. What price then a mere sexual predator like Marc Foley?

Our noses are rubbed
in the filth we as society and individuals have acquiesed to.

Good article Cal.

I wish it wouldn't get worse.
But for God to be just men must be held to account. When they are the wicked rage.

PARTISIANSHIP ASIDE
The lunatics in Washington, and the maggots in the media will make sure that this story is plastered in our face for the next 45 days, totally disregarding the privacy of this young intern, and without consideration of the impact that this will force upon the innocent wife and children of Congressman Foley.

mborgs44, yes there is a difference between a criminal Pervert and a pedophile. The difference in this case is that as of right now Foley can be labeled a criminal pervert, but by the sound of his intentions, that if he had the opportunity his actions could have very easily placed him in the category of a pedophile, and who knows, when this story is all said and done he may already fall into the category of a pedophile.

The bottom line is, Foley needs to be punished and punished to the full extent of the law and without regard to his political status. The scum bag has been caught red handed and needs to be treated the exact same way that any John Doe citizen would.

Visit http://www.headsneedtoroll and post your views, thoughts and opinions.
Heads Need To Roll

You mean Cal ever HAD a moral compass?
Really?

Because here, he's just flexing his same old double standard as he did with DeLay (moaning about the culture, not the personal responsibility):

If it's them, it's horrible! We need to live by fixed standards, not just the vagaries of the culture!

If it's us, well, you know, look at the culture! What a tawdry culture!

And if it's us covering it up, which is the real story here, well, look at the culture!

WHAT a phony.



hosekuervo,
"Adultry is one thing - Homosexual pedophilia is quite another."

Not to lefties. To them, it's all good. Which is the point of Cal's column. If they're willing to defend such behavior in society, or at least excuse it, then what's their problem when someone in congress exhibits the same behavior? The fact is, to lefties it has nothing to do with behavior and everything to do with politics. To them, this is simply something they can use to bludgeon Republicans with right before the election.

Foley and Morality
We are drowning in sex, movies, TV shows, and advertisements. They promote, better sex, longer sex, enhanced sex, homosexual sex, even beastiality. Next there will be an advocate for thowing open the doors of the local funeral home so our necrophiliac population also can have sex.

Foley grew up in another time. He's lost it. Given in to this uglier, lower culture. My fears are for the youngsters who are growing up believing that anything goes.

Somewhere in the background I hear the same fiddle that was played as Rome burned.

antipastarigatoni,
"Please, no moral lectures from a columnist who argues like a wayward child: 'But all the other kids do it.'"

Cal is not arguing that Foley should get off free, but that the left should be just as outraged as when their own people get caught.

"Princples SHOULD be above partisanship."
Agreed. Sounds like you should be in agreement with Cal.

double cappuccino
double cappuccino writes: Tuesday, October, 03, 2006 6:43 AM
You mean Cal ever HAD a moral compass?
Really?

Because here, he's just flexing his same old double standard as he did with DeLay (moaning about the culture, not the personal responsibility):

I don't recall Delay being convicted of anything. Although he did step down to defend himself instead remaining in office and whining that he is only human. I call that personal responsibility.


2xcapp,
"moaning about the culture, not the personal responsibility"

You've managed to entirely miss the point of this column.

NRAlifer
Someone else with no moral compass


NRAlifer writes: Tuesday, October, 03, 2006 6:48 AM

>>>:How typical of you libs to try and label Foley's BS in the same arena as The Impeached One's.

I'm no liberal, chump. (www.LibertryIssues.com)

>>>"First of all, Foley the Pervert EMAILED and IM'd the page, he has not been proved to have left a "smoking stain" on a garment. You can find THAT and I'll HELP you tar and feather Foley.

You have no moral compass at all, if you equate consenting sex between ADULTS with Foley's sexual advances toward a HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT.

Partisanship over principle?

>>>"Drop-Trou Bubba has a HISTORY of sexual predation to include rape. Foley has yet to be proved of that.

Neither does Clinton.

And Foley has not been impeached.

The GOP collapse seems to be causing some tempers to flare.

Here's your sign.


rusino
rusino writes: Tuesday, October, 03, 2006 7:33 AM

>>>"You mean Cal ever HAD a moral compass?
Really?"

One uses irony. :-)

>>>"Because here, he's just flexing his same old double standard as he did with DeLay (moaning about the culture, not the personal responsibility):"

The holier-than-thou Conservatives (not all of them) never accept personal accountability.

They blame the culture ... no different than the whiny liberals they claim to be better than.




Ajhil
ajhil writes: Tuesday, October, 03, 2006 5:06 AM

>>"When George W. Bush can openly espouse the use of secret prisons, Star Chamber tribunals, and torture of prisoners without attracting universal condemnation, our moral compass has certainly gone adrift."

Well, yeah ... but every generation needs its own FDR -- its own betrayal of liberty. The ominous parallels grow almost monthly.



hypocrisy
Cynewulf's response's to the various marxist pigs (who've posted under this column) are quite correct.

What most fail to recognize though is the fact that those with homosexual tendencies (regardless of what they masquerade as) cannot be trusted with children of the same sex. They have the highest percentage of child molesters of any group (see NAMBLA's agenda).

Scandel
Dorothy click your heals and say 3 times...
There is no scandal...
There is no scandal...
There is no scandel...
Click again.
NO matter how many times you click, you can not escape the reality of the issue.
A creep is a creep is a creep!
Foley has not been convicted yet and may never be.
But hey, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...
It does not change the fact that a lot of these page's came forward.
These are kid's working in an adult world.
These kids are our future.
The truth needs to be exposed in the halls of this institution.
We need to know that there are decent men and women out there not preying on on our youth but teaching them values and issues.
Or the other way around.
There are youth preying on adults




Col. Mustard In The Hall With a Knife...
Cal quotes C.S. Lewis: ...We laugh at honour and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid geldings be fruitful.

Jesus said, "... and this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For everyone that does evil hates the light, neither comes to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

It's hard to play the game of life when you don't have a clue.

A lot of responces to Cal's words today prove this to be true with many of us, doesn't it?


Cal's a snazzy dresser, part 5.
On the Foley matter, we need to examine the content of the regular emails, versus the instant messages. Apparently, a number of newspapers(including the Miami Herald)were in possession of Foley's emails, but did not regard them of sufficient import to publish. Given that, if Hastert was aware of the emails, but not the instant messages, he should no more resign than the Miami Herald should abandon the printing of its newspaper. Now, everything about this matter should be investigated, including the suggestion that Foley's instant messages were written by him back in 2003, and stored away "for future reference" by certain "interested parties". What Foley did was disgraceful, but at present all it constitued was disgusting verbal communication between the congressman and the young man, not physical activity.
Anyway, given the state of our popular culture today, when someone famous becomes embroiled in a tawdry situation, he can always arrange a schmooze tour, appearing on the schmaltzy Oprah t.v. show, confessing his weaknesses before an enraptured audience...almost as if this act absolves him of sin. Ours is an age devoid of personal shame.

Why is this a crime?
Wonder where the ACLU is hiding these days? "NAMBLA" should be trying to recruit REP. Foley and the young Pages whom he was involved with. Not sure what all the kurfuffle is about. So,let's show some respect for the man who has made a different choice, sexually, than ours.
.../s/...

Anti-Partisan_Righty
Rusino didn't write what you quoted. That was from Double Cap.

Bankrupt Republicans – bankrupt public
Two thousand years ago Jesus Christ offered a way out of the filth and sin the permeated the world. The people who took advantage of that offer built Western Civilization. A hundred years ago Democrats started to repudiate Christ because they thought they could build a better world.

In the last twenty years Republicans have started to follow the Democrats in their embarrassment and repudiation of Christ. As a result we have offered to us Republicans that pursue sexual perversion, bribery, increase in the scope of Federal government, unprecedented debt, useless wars, and a continual parade of tragic characters.

The case that these politicians are only following the public is probably correct. It will be interesting to observe which party will lead the effort to reintroduce prostitution. Gambling has been such a benefit to the weaker members of our society; imagine the benefit from another sure “money maker”.

Self-indulgent and sin pursuing societies don’t last very long. The illegal migration to the US might actually be a hope for the future, however, regardless of where in the world people come from and no matter how hard they work, their children are turned into spoiled selfish consumers in one generation by our school system and TV. Like a young couple with $150,000 of credit card debt, the party will be over soon.

conservative witch hunt
Whoa. I'm floored. Absolutely floored. After reading some of these posts it becomes all to clear why silly liberals are called moonbats. For anyone to believe for a single second that evil is bound by political party affiliation is absolutely astounding.

"Can't compare Foley with Clinton"... That's right - you can't compare a pedophile with a narcissistic adulterous rapist - they are both evil and both about sex, however one is for power the other for lust. And for you DNCers - we must not forget your homosexual hero Barney Frank - seller of boys.

Liberals should concentrate on stopping ALL sickos like Foley rather than making it a conservative witch hunt.

NRAlifer
NRAlifer writes: Tuesday, October, 03, 2006 8:31 AM

>>>>"I was replying to hosekuervo that what Clinton did was wrong as h*ll and what Foley did is wrong as h*ll. HOWEVER, Foley sent nasty perverted IM's he did not rape and harass as Drop-Trou did."

That's a total Non-Response.

One more time, Sport:

You have no moral compass at all, if you equate consenting sex between ADULTS with Foley's sexual advances toward a HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT.

Partisanship over principle?

>>>"Drop-Trou Bubba has a HISTORY of sexual predation to include rape. Foley has yet to be proved of that.

Neither does Clinton.

And Foley has not been impeached.

Here's your sign


Rusino
rusino writes: Tuesday, October, 03, 2006 8:36 AM

>>>"Anti-Partisan_Righty
Rusino didn't write what you quoted. That was from Double Cap. "

You are correct. I was wrong.

Sorry.

(SOME of it must have been yours?!)

Who supports Foley?
UNfortunately, Cal's column fires nothing but blanks. Who are the liberals who defend Foley's behavior? What lefty media pundits have said it ws okay for him to email the page? Where are the gay organizations who support Foley and announce that his behavior was acceptable?

Cal never discloses any of this, probably because he couldn't find any real examples to show off. So he just attaches Foley's name to Standard Anti-Gay and Cultural Decline Rant 46-alpha tango, and writes a column. Then all the conservatives get to vent, and moan about cultural decay.

There. Feel better now, everyone?

Ajhil
At least we have a moral compass. If you take time to read this and other colimns, along with the reader comments, you will notice that nobody is condoning an adult preying on, or marrying, underage children.

Our moral compas also dictates that we don't hide behind women and children or conceal arms in residential neighborhoods or religious buildings.

Star Chamber Tribunals are too good for those who are caught in acts of terror. At least they are given fair hearings and not beheaded for imagined transgressions; not to mention the tapes being broadcast publicly. It's too bad those clerics who do the recuriting from the pulpit aren't also in front of those star chamber tribunals.

And finally torture. How about giving us a definition of the word. Does it mean not letting a person get 8 hours sleep a night or cutting off fingers? Does it mean being made to stand for long periods of time or to having your tongue cut out? Does it mean being kept in a chilly surrounding or being made to watch your wife or daughter being raped? If we are going to have an intelligent discussion we have to first have an agreed upon definition of the words we are going to be using?

Now, to the subject of the day. Yesterday several radio talk show hosts were referring to the fact that someone had these emails and instant messages (IM) for a while and, along with joining in the condemnation of the congressman, were questioning the timing of the release.

Someone suggented that there should be an investigation into who had them, how they were obtained, and why they werent' turned over to authorities earlier. Remember when a Senate Staffer found Dem emails concerning the stonewalling of appeals court judge appointments and the encouragement to stop the appointment from various organizations known to be Dem supporters? The big thing from the Dems and the MSM was how dare a Republican staffer look at Dem internal memos, not the organized attack against a very qualified judicial candidate for no reason other than to obstruct.

There were also suggestions that whoever had the emails and IM's should be prosecuted for child endangerment for holding them for so long. Some suggested they were held as long as three years.

Considering the recent reliability of the MSM it's safe to say that there is a bunch of guessing and second guessing going on. Perhaps it would be better to wait until a few more facts are available before we start the inquisition.

Anti-Partisan_Righty
I quoted Double Cap in a post. I probably didn't make what I was saying clear.

Thanks for the response.

The most disturbing thing about this....
....is that Foley's disgusting behavior is going to end up dictating our Iraq policy after November. When the funding dries up(the dems are already promising to stop funding the war if they win) and our men are forced to skulk home with their tails between their legs while the terrorists do that lalalalalalalalalalala thing in the streets, celebrate their victory over America, and become even more emboldened at our paper tiger status, we'll have this pervert to thank for it. Actually, the perversion of our leaders has figured prominently in much of our dealings with terrorists. Clinton's perversions distracted him from stopping this problem before it got out of hand, and now Foley's even more disgusting perversions shall be the catalyst for our retreat in the face of the enemy.

Almost makes you wonder if our enemies are right about us, doesn't it?


Gestell
Main Entry: fa·ce·tious
Pronunciation: f&-'sE-sh&s
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle French facetieux, from facetie jest, from Latin facetia
1 : joking or jesting often inappropriately : WAGGISH [just being facetious]
2 : meant to be humorous or funny : not serious [a facetious remark]

An additional thought
I forgot to add this to the earlier rant.

For a long time now I've thought how much easier it must be to belong to the Dem side and stand for little or nothing. So far they stand for same sex marriage, redistribution of wealth from producers to non producers, racism, cowardice, infidelity, sexual harrassment (Thanks Bill), and hipocracy, to name a few. All easy standards to live up to.

Conservatives, on the other hand, are constantly attacked for doing what Dems think is ok to do on the left side of the isle. For example, after Gingrich stepped down as Speaker it was learned that his replacement had an affair many years earlier. (Sorry, I can't remeber his name). Because of this he took his name out of the running for the position. An act of personal integrity. Had he been of the other party nothing similar would have happened and the libs would have circled the wagons to protect him. Barney runs a "business" out of his D.C. apartment and his side rushes to his defense. A republican has an affair and he take personal responsibility for his actions. Does anybody see a difference?

Pogue_Mahone
Almost makes you wonder if our enemies are right about us, doesn't it?

I'll respond to your question.

Not in a million years! Think about your question and it's implications.

Cynewulf is right
Typically, most of the Lib posters here have completely missed the point of the article.

Neither Cal nor any of us are defending Foley. If he's guilty, he deserves our outrage and should suffer the consequences.

Cal's point is that to the nonjudgmental Lib, there is no "right" or "wrong." Libs don't define a rapist's or pedophile's behavior as abhorrent because to them it's not the rapist's fault, it's society's fault. Thus, the displays of Lib "outrage" over the Foley affair are calculated and disengenuous. Pure politics.

rusino....
"Think about your question and it's implications."

I have. Now you think about what is happening here. This scandal could very well be the defining factor in the democrats retaking congress and forcing our retreat in Iraq by ceasing all funding for it, as they have already promised to do. Think about America losing a war and retreating in the face of the enemy, because of a sexual perversion. Consider how our enemies proclaim our perverted culture is our Achilles heel and will be our downfall. That's some messed up stuff, there.

I can't believe...

...you folks are even discussing this. I mean, saying things like "at least Foley resigned"? Are you kidding me? Look at yourselves, defending Foley.
Your partisanship is more important to you than your morality.

Hastert is going down. Not because he knew about this months ago, which he did, and not because he didn't initiate any investigation whatsoever, which he didn't. He's going down because he's been lying to cover his a$$ since the story broke.

As with Bill Clinton and George Bush, the problem isn't the original action, it's the lying about it. It's the lying that's not survivable.

.

Cal's right
The precipitous decline of the nation was made especially evident by the debacle of the hedonistic Slick Willie's never ending search for salicious juvenile activity in the people's house. There was nothing he could do, absolutely nothing, that would turn off the sophomoric, relentless praise he received from the NOW gang.

Fondle Kathleen Wiley in the oval office? The National Organization for women (NOW), Limbaugh correctly refers to them as NAGS, essentially said "boys will be boys." Play hide the cigar in the oval office with a 21 year old intern? Doesn't that violate all the laws NOW fought for to present sexual harrasment in the work place? NOW, in twisted logic that would've made Willie-boy himself envious, insisted that the superior-subordinate relationship did not exist between the two and therefore the laws of sexual harrassment did not pertain.

NOW, thanks a lot. Rock on boys.

A double standard???
Yes there is a double standand. When Gary Studds's affair with a house page was uncovered he was defiant, he did not apologize and received a standing ovation from the Democrats in the house. When Mark Foley does virtually the same thing it is abhorrant behavior. Yes, most people including myself believe that Mr. Foley needed to step down from being a Congressman for reasons mentioned above. Shouldn't have Mr. Studds and the rest of the people mentioned in your blog have received the same judgement??
I would submit to you that the Democrats who leaked this story don't care about Mr. Foley's abhorrent and disgraced behavior one bit. This is about being less than 30 days out from a mid-term election and returning power back to the Democrats. All in a days work.
The lesson in all this is that if you are a disgraced scum bag you are better off being a Democrat because you are able to serve as long as you would like and recieve several thousand dollars more in campaigne contributions.
I am tired of the Democrats and the Drive by media(one in the same)playing on our sense of decency to achieve their menial little end.

Hypocracy:Compliment vice pays virtue
Let me get this straight: An individual is getting publicly censured for abusing his authority by sending salacious text messages to a 17-year old male page. In light of the public censure, said individual had the decency to remove himself from his position of authority, as opposed to:

+ An overtly gay congressman (Mr. Frank) , from the people’s republic of Massachusetts, allowed his Washington flat to be employed in a gay prostitution ring run by his 18-year old chauffeur while simultaneously engaging in group sex parties. Result: slap on the wrist- censure by a Democrat-controlled Congress after refusing to resign.

+The internet lists some teacher abusing her authority on a near weekly basis (e.g., Debra Lafavre, Mary Kay Letourneau, etc.) by engaging in sex with 13-17 year old boys & in many cases becoming pregnant by them. These women then attempt to pass the children off as their husbands’ children. Result: slap(s) on the wrist- they were mentally ill, suffering from domestic abuse, etc.

+Federal taxpayers routinely support sexist “Women’s Centers” on most mainstream college campuses, “Centers” that frequently sponsor that embodiment of feminist intellectualism: “The Vagina Monologues”- a play which glorifies pedophilia by displaying a scene where a 60-year old lesbian seduces a 13-year old girl. But that’s art…

Oh I get it, the congressmen sending said text messages is WHITE, MALE & a REPUBLICAN!!! That’s different. Society must apply the underlying tenets of “AFFIRMATIVE ACTION” to every other facet of society. Society can’t possibly hold members of government-sanctioned victim groups (overt-gays, women, etc.) to same level of behavior as evil WHITE MALE REPUBLICANs.

Well....
The biggest problem, as I see it, is that the American Voter is confused, now, more than ever. Dumb voters will not be able to separate issues, like what the man did for his district from the salacious news that is inhabiting the media. I am conforted by the fact that this pig resigned, but all the same, we need to vote his party back into that seat. Do I think that will happen....? NO, because the Dems are good at this...a weakness to them is to be pounded upon and exploited till there is nothing left but bones and hair. Our politics are killing this country...My prayer is not for better government, but for SMARTER, MORE INFORMED ON THE ISSUES VOTERS.
Winston Churchill quote "..the people get the government they deserve." SO VERY TRUE!

hntr admin
Stated it clearly. Wrong is wrong and calls for consequences regardless of the politics of the perpetrator. If conservatives want to make a point, then they should clamor for Foley's hide and show that they won’t twist the issue like the liberals do when it’s one of their number.

Pogue_Mahone: 9/11 all over again
Pogue_Mahone wrote:

"Think about America losing a war and retreating in the face of the enemy, because of a sexual perversion..."

When the smoke clears WRT assigning culpability to the various parties associated with preventing the 9/11 attacks, it will come to light that guilt can be distributed between Clinton (focusing on defending himself from impeachment-he deserves the “lion’s share”), Democrat party (enabling Clinton's lascivious behavior) ,and the Republican controlled congress (focusing on sticking it to Clinton) for having their priorities misdirected- focusing on the impeachment process rather than focusing on National Security.

NRAlifer
NRAlifer writes: Tuesday, October, 03, 2006 9:24 AM

>>>"What Bubba did was NOT consensual sex, it was sex by intimidation. Sexual Harrassment. The wrongful use of power to have sex with an intern."

The words of NRAlifer? Or the thoughts of Rosie O'Donnell?

>>>"Quit trying to muddy the water. "

Yet again:

>>>"Drop-Trou Bubba has a HISTORY of sexual predation to include rape. Foley has yet to be proved of that.

Neither does Clinton.

Here's your sign, sluggo.


Would the liberals
be calling Foley's behavior "abhorrent" and "perverted" if the victim were an 18-year-old college freshman? What a difference a couple of years makes. I think this is the perfect example of "moral relativism". That being said, I am disgusted by the whole mess, and I pray that Hastert, Boehner, et al, did not cover this up. If they did, they've got to go. And please stop with the "you did it first" and "your guy is worse than my guy" crap. ALL OF IT IS WRONG, DISGUSTING, IMMORAL AND IT MUST STOP!!!!

There must be some ACLU
lawyer-schmuck lying in the weeds scouring this website for dirt on republicans. Can you spout for us, sir, statute, chapter & verse, of the precise crime Foley committed?Admittedly, his behavior is dispicable and unethical, but is it legally criminal? I though "inducement" was a necessary element of proving the crime of using the internet for sexual contact with minors.

I believe it's premature at this point to throw anybody overboard, aside from Foley, until we know precisely who knew what and when. There's too much at stake to simply begin the lopping off of heads now. We must get all the facts, them let the chips fall where they may.

Try again Anti-Partisan_Righty
Rosie adores Bubba and wouldn't dream of accusing him of sexual harrassment.

BS detector
I must of passed right over those posts where conservatives were defending Foley. It seemed to me as if they were all saying he was a scumbag. Could you give an example of what the heck you are talking about?

rd
rd writes: Tuesday, October, 03, 2006 10:12 AM

>>>"Try again Anti-Partisan_Righty
Rosie adores Bubba and wouldn't dream of accusing him of sexual harrassment. "

Sorry if I was unclear.

NRAlifer's argument was that of a feminist.

I thought that was obvious.



Mick7
Mick7 writes: Tuesday, October, 03, 2006 10:06 AM

>>>"There must be some ACLU
lawyer-schmuck lying in the weeds scouring this website for dirt on republicans. Can you spout for us, sir, statute, chapter & verse, of the precise crime Foley committed?"

Nobody said it was a crime, sport.

Are you defending his actions?

>>>>"Admittedly, his behavior is dispicable and unethical, but is it legally criminal?"

Does it have to be?

>>>"I believe it's premature at this point to throw anybody overboard, aside from Foley, until we know precisely who knew what and when."

Everybody else knows that. You live in a cave?


Homosexual tolerant Republicans
The current tolerance of homosexuality among the Republican elite has come up to bite the GOP on their collective rears. Homosexual Arizona Congressman Jim Kolbe retires his seat, and, in a fit of pique, snubs the man Republican voters chose to replace him, virtually handing over the seat to the Democrats. Mark Foley, rumored for years as being homosexual, confirms his perversion with his dastardly attempts to lure teen-aged boys into a life of moral corruption. George W. Bush himself has attended at least one event exalting homosexual Republicans, he and Mrs. Bush taking photographs with some of the homosexuals. Bush's ambassador to Romania during his first term was homosexual and an affront to that nation. Another homosexual (closeted) has been enpowered at the upper reaches of the Republican Party by President Bush, a man so important that the homosexual lobby has chosen not to "out" him. And, of course, there is the Vice-President's daughter, proudly out of the closet, who attends Republican events as an honored guest.

So, just when the embattled Republicans have headed back to their home grounds to spend five weeks fighting for their political lives, the media gets to saturate the current buzz with stories of Mark Foley's repellant behavior and the Republican House hierarchy's apparent attempts to sweep Foley's misdeeds under the rug. Look for traditional conservatives to stay home in droves from the polls, betrayed once again by the Republican elite.

President Bush better get used to the concept of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. He helped create her future speakership.

Scandal?
The only reasons that this is a scandal at all are because 1) Foley is a Republican and the Dems and their media allies want to use it as a campaing issue, and 2) pedohilia is the outrage dujour. They will pursue Foley to the ends of the earth on this because it fits their 'for the kids' rhetoric. If it was about the kids, then why weren't these IM's turned over before now? Someone had them and decided not to disclose them until weeks before an election.

Partisan gamesmanship, anyone?

Shocked
"We laugh at honour and are shocked to find traitors in our midst."

And we glorify the rogue and are shocked when the number of rogues increases.

Missing the Point
The National Republican Party is on the verge of self destruction. With its legislative leadership being revealed as members of a special class not beholden to the public (not at all different from the Democrats) for their behavior, with the Party Chieftains interested not in the heart and soul of the Party but only the manipulation of elections (not at all different from the Democrats), it is time that local Republicans take ahold of the State Parties. It is at that point that reforms must come

The Republicans seem to have forgotten that power comes from the people.

Blind leading the Blind
Apparently none of you liberals read the entire piece. You clearly missed the part about Gerry Studds. The DEMOCRAT who HAD SEX with an UNDERAGE PAGE and was CELEBRATED for it by his fellow DEMOCRATS and given campaign money by HOMOSEXUAL GROUPS. I believe he also received, at some point, 3 STANDING OVATIONS from his fellow DEMOCRATS. So take your phony outrage home and clean your own house.

Cal's point is this..
Lefties cannot cry scandal and disgrace because they have no foundation of decent behavior to stand on. The party of Nambla and San Fransisco liberals who don't think pedophilia is wrong can hardly make a position of right or wrong. The history of liberal judges who let child molesters off with a slap after molesting children for years is the reason they can't judge Foley or anyone else. They appoint these losers, they support Nambla, they support devious behavior, they support letting child molesters out. His column is not a defense of Foley, far from it. He's saying that liberals have no business crying wrong doing when they have no sense of right and wrong. They stand for chaos and lawlessness and disgusting behavior from perverts. When we have a disgrace like Foley in our midst we don't try to propel him to higher office like the left did with Drop Trou Willie. And as far as the call for an investigation into who knew about it when, we'll start on the left because they obviously knew along time ago and held their tongues putting Pages in further danger of molestation until election time. Shame on liberals. All liberal resign now.

fantastic article!
kudos to Mr. Thomas on an excellent article! His point is well disguised and therefore well made. As to all who think he's being sarcastic or exhibiting a double standard, I suggest you think a little more about the article.

Did We Forget- Innocence
It seems that we have forgotten that a child needs developmental stages in their youth to grow into secure and sane people. Protection from the deviant aspects of life which will bring bad dreams and bad actions. Soceity today is willing to bypass this most effective and natural course of a child's life. When we see so many troubled souls, we can correctly conclude that these childrens needs were not tended to as children. This causes problems throughout their life. Nightmares which become a reality, pain for all who share their sorrowful past. Let's try to help our children, whom need a father and a mothers love, protection and lead them with morals, values, self-discipline and a way to grow in life that will be happy and healthy. The pain we see in souls today, reaches out and kills everyone and anyone in their path. Much like the destruction of nature's rath.

One more thing Florida
Vote for the GOP replacement candidate John Negron. Don't let the disgraced Foley make you vote for the party of Nambla.

who is this pervert?
When I first heard this story about this pervert I can honestly say I didn't know who he was and what political party he was from. After he didn't deny it or accuse some right wing extremists or come out with a book deal I immediately knew he must be a Republican. By the way why haven't we heard if he is married or not. Would the fact that he is single and gay hurt the political agenda of the liberal press?

APR
You should give serious consideration to getting up from your computer and getting a life.

Excellent Article
Foley and people like him are disgusting, but I don't see why this would keep someone from voting Republican in November though. I vote for the guy that I think will vote most like I would. Foley is a homosexual and a pedophile, both causes are pushed by the left. Yeah, I know everyone will scream "the pedophile agenda is not pushed by the left" but you are fooling yourself. You may not push it but the further left you go you will. If you don't believe me, look up Justice Ginsburgs comments on the subject.
Someone mentioned that Foley couldn't do the lecture circuit because he is a Republican and they are right. Republican voters look at this guy and say "Get this scum out of here." He's not going to get Dems to listen to him because he's Republican and they hate them to death, and Republicans won't stand for this kind of immoral activity. Dems don't mind this kind of immoral activity as they have proven through Franks, Studds, etc.
As Cal indirectly points out, we need morally strong people in office. America wont vote in a REAL Christian (not just a political Christian) that actually follows real moral guidelines, but they freak out when those they do put in office are perverts. Personally I'd love to see my Senator come out and vote against a bill because he thought it passed a moral line somewhere. Some of you are going to flip out that I've said that, but that is the very point that Cal Thomas has made in this article.

Missed the point
"That exactly is Cal's point. a large segment of society has adopted moral relativism."

Cal's point, reading between the lines, is his idea that moral relativism is the same as amorality. They're not.

He also leaves out that voters deserted Crane in droves, where the age of consent is 18; he offended his voters' sensibilities by being married and fooling around with someone underage in his home district. Was Stubbs married? If he was, his constituents evidently didn't care.

Even we liberals and sometimes-moral relativists see a line has been crossed, even in DC where that line is 17 years old.

rd wrote:

"I must of passed right over those posts where conservatives were defending Foley. It seemed to me as if they were all saying he was a scumbag. Could you give an example of what the heck you are talking about?"

The original article implies that society has created an environment that takes some of the responsibility off of Foley.

It's society's fault.

"First of all, Foley the Pervert EMAILED and IM'd the page, he has not been proved to have left a "smoking stain" on a garment."

Foley's not as bad as Clinton.

"Foley grew up in another time. He's lost it. Given in to this uglier, lower culture."

It's culture's fault.


What should be said is "He's a dirtbag, period. If others knew about it, they should face punishment, period." Why is that difficult?

.

Come on now!
"He's a Republican, albeit a disgraceful one, and being a pervert is only a virtue if one is a Democrat."

Get it right. Democrats are corrupt, Republicans are perverts.

Thank God I'm looking at 3rd parties.

That WAS humor by the way.

FunkyFoley
What gets my goat about the low-lifes in congress: disgusting as they are...will go home or jail with their government retirements and perks in their pockets and we, the people of the United States of America, will continue to pay for these criminals with monies out of our pockets for the rest of their lives.

NRAlifer wins the prize...

...for the most off-topic post:

"HOW THE H*LL did Murtha slime his way out of the Abscam sting op?

"http://www.foxnews.com...

"The more we dig, the nastier the critters that we find. Murtha should have resigned decades ago."

Republican Closeted Gay Agenda
So if you're all up in arms about homosexuals, how about the other closeted gay Republican leaders:

Linsday Graham, senator for South Carolina

David Dreier, rep from California and head of the House Rules Committee

and can't forget Ken Mehlman, no less than chair of the Republican National Committee

Boehner

Did you see him scurrying around trying to find his way?

* First he told the Washington Post that he told Hastert about it, and that Hastert said "we're taking care of it."

* Then he told Roll Call that he had not informed Hastert about it.

* Then he called the WPO back to say that he couldn't remember if he had told Hastert or not.

* Today he told a radio interviewer that he had told Hastert and Hastert said it had been taken care of.

Which account do you believe? Do you think less of the Majority Leader now? If not, why not?

Look, this kind of lying happens on both sides all of the time. It's just the Republicans caught in it this time. I'll be interested to ses how you moral die hard conservatives react.

.

NRAlifer- not just most off-topic poster

but also no sense of humor. Attack attack attack.

"It was in keeping with the story in that you liberals are quick to point the finger at the GOP but rally around murderers like Chappaquiddick Ted, Boy-lover Studds, and William Jefferson, Mr 100K."

'you liberals.' I love that. I only look liberal from your radical vantage point.

There's bad guys on both sides, and I see your defense is to attack the other side. Why do you see yourself as better than the partisans you fight against?

"Now fly back to DailyKos for some more talking points."

Might surprise you, but I think I've only been there once or twice. Couldn't even tell you what the site design looks like.

.


Foley
Foley made the same mistake that Garry Hart did he was prominent in sponsoring a bill against sexual predators and was shown smiling and shaking hands with Bush at the signing of the Bill. Hart dared reporters to prove he was consorting with bimbos so they did. Foley might end up being prosecuted by his own bill. The time it took to catch up with Foley might have been prophesized in his own words: Representative Mark Foley, a Florida Republican, said, ''We track library books better than we do sexual predators." (Boston Globe September 15 S005.}

The Gay Lobby
It is amusing to see the Left so up in arms over Foley's disgusting IM's. These are the same folks who are so militant about the rights of gay, lesbian and transgender kids in our schools (yes, even middle and high schools!) In the NYC public school system, if a boy makes an unwanted approach to another boy, he is neither censured nor punished. Instead he is referred to counseling by the GLT Alliance or similar groups of peers and gay ADULTS. There, his confused or nascent sexual proclivities are reinforced and supported as healthy, normal and to be freely pursued. A heterosexual advance is considered a CRIME!

Well, the irony is that these self righteous libertines are now ganging up on the Republicans, as if they are the soul of immorality. Had everyone not been afraid to say something about the wisdom of having a closeted but known homosexual with unfettered access to young boys, maybe this wouldn't have happened.

Things like this will ALWAYS happen when gay men are in positions of power and influence over boys. It's just that it ain't PC to say so.

I understand
Cal's sarcasm, but I wish he had of just come out against the action without mentioning 'excuses'.

Republican or Democrat, we need to get rid of these immoral jerks.

Every Single Lib Comment
I haven't been here very long but thoroughly enjoyed reading both the articles by respected journalists and the most of the intelligent comments thereafter.

The comments I read today are by far the most vicious, ugly and decadent views of the Dems. As far as I could detect, there was not ONE honest, fair and even competent discussion. Just hatred directed at these horrible, deceiving conservatives.

I won't be around much longer when all I get for my reading pleasure is the garbage they throw around. I was of the impression that townhall.com was a conservative site - and it was initially, but lately ... I wonder.
Chris - a disillusioned reader.

Also Disillusioned
I'm disillusioned too. Disillusioned that no matter how low the current Republican leadership sinks, the reaction around here is the same:

1)You too! (Dems are bad too). That is moral relativism, plain and simple.

2)You liberal moonbat! (Said to anyone with a brain who questions authority. Somemof us are conservatives who question authority). Barry Goldwater must be rolling over in his grave.

Foley is trying to pick up teenagers for sex. Kids entrusted to those Congressman for care and teaching. Hastert is informed. His response- cover it up. Better to put children at risk than risk losing a safe seat to a Dem.

Is that the best we can do? Really?

Interesting also that the Miami Herald, St. Petersberg paper and Fox News all had copies of the emails and chose not to report. So much for the liberal media out to get Republicans.

Bi-partisan amorality...
Hey NRALifer,

Seems the libs in the crowd howling "foul" must have been out to lunch when the "in your face" amoral decline broke out over every nook, and cranny of our nation these past several decades.

When Mrs. Fowley's little boy Markie first heard "If it feels good, do it!"; he did. And, as he grew older "it" kept working for him! As also, and across the isle, with Mrs. Frank's son Barney, etc., etc. So many are apparently shocked, and sputtering, "Where the hello did that come from?!"

The libs best not start throwing things. Wasn't it President Slickness that said, "One good intern deserves another"?




To the self-appointed lie detector
Hate to interrupt your gay-bashing, but ever heard of the Congressional Record? My mother used to subscribe to it. Been reading it since I was a wee one. And, sorry, as I always told my children- not my job to do your homework for you. The truth about Studds is all over the airwaves- open your ears.

JUST SWITCH PARTIES
Foley should just switch parties. He'll be a featured speaker at the Democratic convention in 2008.

After all, you can't help who you love, right?

The path to favor in disgrace in America
In the relativist's morality play, Gerry Studds attained deity and Dan Crane became a demon. They were judged by the same standard.

They both received essentially the same censure from the House in 1983, but Crane broke down and wept whereas Studds was defiant. Studds was re-elected and went on to marry his boyfriend in 2005 amidst noisy acclaim for his courage. Crane is condemned and forgotten.

It's about character as it's measured in relative terms: it isn't a partisan thing. The transgressions of Gary Hart (D), Bill Clinton (D) might be downplayed by partisans, but their character is condemned by everyone.

In contrast, Gerry Studds and Barney Franks are trumpeted with the accolade "openly gay congressman". These guys show an understanding, that relativism is a moral code. Jim McGreevey also understands this.

When you act out of conviction - it doesn't matter what you believe or do - you will garner sympathy and admiration from relativists. You might have a male prostitution ring running out of your house, and you might use your power to get your boyfriend out of trouble with his 33 traffic tickets, but the public only cares about the strength of your convictions and your courage under fire.

The public will put you through the gauntlet, but if you come through proving that you acted in the strength of your convictions, they will bestow a martyr's crown at the end of your ordeals.

That's why, in the relativist morality play, there are no laurels awaiting Mark Foley.

Punishing Sin
God punishes sin with more sin. That's the whole meaning of Romans 1:28:

"And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;"

Every generation thinks that the next generation is worse than the one before.

Yet, it's plain to see, more and more, society coarsened.

This "snowball" will continue to roll till the end.

"Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;" 1Timothy 4:2

Gary Gordon

Where are the sodomites?

Where are the defenders of sodomy & pedophilia? Why is it OK to condemn this behavior sometimes while accepting & promoting it other times & demonizing those who don’t agree? What Mr. Thomas is saying is that the insanity of moral relativism includes party affiliation for the most vocal proponents of sexual perversion.

Let’s be thankful that at least one of the political parties will condemn immortality when it occurs in their ranks. Let the Dems know that their October election games won’t work anymore. Vote these neoAmericans out of office.


NRAlifer

"The name of the game is WIN WIN WIN and if it takes ATTACK ATTACK ATTACK so be it."

How refreshing, a bit of honesty - it takes guts to admit that winning is paramount, trumping things like integrity, honor, and truthfulness.

.

Analysis
Thomas has a thesis. Standard definitions pertaining to morality have been questioned and disclaimed so much in our culture, that there remains no foundation left with which to judge any behavior.

To prove his claim, he uses examples of Democrats and Republicans who have violated ethics, specifically: Foley and Crane (R) and McGreevy, Clinton, and Studds (D). This is called "even-handedness." He also uses examples of Veggie Tales being censored for using "God" while Madonna not being censored for assuming Deity posture. This example is used to demonstrate that good now equals evil and vice versa. That example serves to underscore his thesis that moral foundations are now topsy turvy.

He then discusses some of the outcomes that necessarily must follow such a blurring and lack of moral clarity by quoting C.S. Lewis. His thesis is therefore supported and enhanced when he points out that 1. The standards that have heretofore been successfully railed against and destroyed become laughable when invoked by those who have worked against them so strenuously, and 2. Such tragic irony is generally lost on those who refuse to admit that a sliding scale morality, allowing capricious application, will breed civilization destroying behavior.

The article is well reasoned, even-handedly supported, and is a credit to the Town Hall site. The lack of clear analysis in some of the posts is sad indeed.

Valientfortruth wrote:

"Why is it OK to condemn this behavior sometimes while accepting & promoting it other times"?

Um, maybe because in the one case it's a crime against children and in the other it's between consenting adults? I'm sorry, is that too liberal of me, to not concern myself with what adults choose to do with each other when it doesn't impact me?

"Let’s be thankful that at least one of the political parties will condemn immortality when it occurs in their ranks."

That is, if the public finds out about it. If we can hide it from the public, well, that's another matter.

"Let the Dems know that their October election games won’t work anymore. Vote these neoAmericans out of office."

You might want to look up the prefix "neo." As Inigo said, I do not think it means what you think it means.

.

BS detector
Look, so many posters have already made the point, but let's try it one more time.

Conservatives are NOT saying, "Ok he's a scumbag, but we can point out a lot of Lib scumbags too, so let's just forget about it."

We're saying, "Yeah he's a scumbug, let's get rid of him. I sure wish that Libs would respond with the same outrage and condemnation for members of their own party that they do for Republicans."

And you're dreaming if you think 26 years is far enough in the past to take it off of the table as an excellent example of the identical situation except that the DEMOCRAT was celebrated, reelected, and lived happily ever after. It's not.

last post
The last paragraph refers to Gerry Stubbs.

Typical Republican response...
blame Clinton. I thought this was the party of morality and God. They should be skinning this guy alive and kicking Hastert out for covering the whole thing up. But, because Republicans only give lip service to "traditional family values" to get the votes of the uninformed and under-educated, they are going to make nonsensical arguments like "but, but, but Clinton". Well, for the uninformed, Monica Lewinski was 22 years old (and a college graduate) when she met Bill Clinton. Can you say consensual adult? I knew you could. Don't you realize the conservative columists and radio hosts are playing you as fools. Their job is to keep you asleep, keep you stupid, and keep you voting Republican. The GOP doesn't care about the average American, they don't care about our soldiers, they don't care about our economy. They only care about making a quick buck on the backs of the clueless.

objective vs subjective
ValiantForTruth, it isn't true that one party condemns immorality and the other rewards it. It's more like this:

The Republicans reward those who condemn immorality. They would rather not know if you are guilty of what you condemn. They respect those who uphold and strengthen standards even if in the end they are condemned by those same standards. So, Foley, a pederast, made things much harder on sexual predators. This is how believers in objective morality behave.

The Democrats reward sincerity, not morality. You might be a homosexual Republican congressman ... you aren't alone. But if you make things hard for homosexuals, you will be exposed and your career will be over - not because you are a homosexual, and not because you are a Republican, but because you make it hard to be a homosexual when you are one yourself. This is how believers in subjective morality behave.

Righteousness cannot be obtained by laws. More law means more guilt. But the subjective moralist will destroy law to relieve his guilt, and the objective moralist will suffer himself to be destroyed rather than deny that there is a truth greater than his glands.

Mark Foley is no hero. But by admitting to his own humiliation that his guilt is real, he has angels on his side. May God have mercy on him.

The other popular line seems to be
But, what about the Lib scumbags? Well, who would you be referring to. The only politicians that I see getting caught with their hands in the cookie jar (or down a young boy's pants) happen to be Republican. Sorry, 0% morality and 100% hipocrasy seems to be a market that the GOP has cornered.

Jesus...
The depths that Neonnuts sink to around here to rationalize Foley is truly sickening. This is why the Democrats lose. They try to be reasonable with sick, twisted individuals who will rationalize pedophilia when a Republican gets caught doing it, but will stone any Liberal for the same thing.


Yogasoggoth
If I, as a faculty member, were to engage in "consensual" sexual behavior with a student or teacher assistant, I'd be fired. It has to do with using power and priviledge over those who may be bedazzled by higher office and thereby be seduced. In fact, on many campuses, graduate assistants are not allowed to date students in their classes. It has to do with influence and abuse of power.

If I, as a mere faculty member, am subject to such constraints of behavior and can lose my job over such "consensual" behaviour, how much more one in the position of ultimate power, the President of The United States.

In no way do I rationalize Foley. But you brought up the canard of "consensual" behavior to cover for inexcusable behavior in a position of power.

Yes, Clinton
Here's my problem with this situation, the old double standard by the Democrats. If you remember correctly Clinton forced two generals to retire because of their affairs with subordinate females. I remember his finger wagging and stating that anyone in a position of authority was guilty of sexual harassment whether it was consensual or not and this would not be tolerated in HIS administration. This was widely acclaimed by the libs and feminists and applauded by the liberal press. Where were these people during the Monica affair?

Profblog
By your argument, the President of the UNited States is not allowed to have sex with anyone because his position of power is above anyone in the United States. Of course, I have yet to hear Monica Lewinski accuse the president of harassment so your argument is just typical GOP misdirection. The issue isn't Bill Clinton so let's stay on topic. The topic is that the GOP is the party of corruption, the party of say one thing do another, the party of spin, lies, and obfuscation. They are the party of big business and the party of screw all Americans who make less than a million a year. They are a party that governs to the lowest common denominator and they consistently preach hate and division.


well said
Excellent post Mac

not by my argument
Not by my argument...This is by Clinton's own statement..Sexual harassment, regardless of consent, is by someone who has power over a subordinate. This has been claimed time after time by you libs, why do you want to reverse it now?

Yes, Yogsoggoth, he was allowed
Clinton was allowed to have sex with Hillary.

Both parties have everything you've described. Believing otherwise is self deception. Silicon Valley and S.F. are full of wildly rich liberals as well as the Microsoft haven in Seattle. Why would I begrudge them of that? If you think that only Republicans are the ones protecting their wealth any way they can, you're willfully blind.

Looking to any political party as "the answer" is blissful ignorance. Plenty of posts above have documented corruption in high places over many decades. Implying that the GOP has a corner on corruption is silly.

Talking Past Each Other
I've noticed that there's a lot of talking past each other on this thread. One thing that should be made clear is that the Republicans, as the only party that occasionally defends normal Christian or culturally conservative values, must be held to a higher standard than the Democrats. Remember, the Democrats not only are the party of society's economic losers but they are the party of the immoral. For them, the Foley fiasco is not a moral dilemma but a blunt instrument to bludgeon Republicans with.

However, another quandry is that there is a permissive wing in the Republican Party that wishes to engage with deviants like the homosexuals. Jim Kolbe and Mark Foley were members in good standing in the Republican party of George W. Bush. Signalling his acceptance of homosexuality, President Bush has appointed homosexuals to prominent positions in his administration.

Homosexuality is a degenerate lifestyle. Any organization or individual that comes into contact with homosexuality risks contamination. Think of the Roman Catholic Church. The accepting Republican Party of George Bush played with fire when it broke bread with the likes of Mark Foley and now it has been burned.

hmmm
Thomas, in the article above, wrote to show how corrupted moral standards have allowed a defense of things indefensible behavior. If the affair with Monica was "consensual" how did the wife get left out of the loop? Was Hillary consulted so as to make the "consensual" relationship ratified by all? I simply don't understand how using Monica's "consent" makes moral failure more tasteful.

Soggy youth
Nobody's blaming Clinton. Repeat after me: It is "contrasting" Clinton's behavior to that of Foley's. I don't read anybody here saying Foley should get a pass. Most of us would just like to see the same indignation from dems for similar behavior from Clinton, Franks, Studd, et al.

And skip the argument about Monica consenting. Bill used his power to coerce, then to keep her silent. The use of power to gain personal gratification is a violation of trust. Use of power to coerce is a crime.

Both Foley and Clinton are morally repugnant. Everyone should be equally outraged rather than selectively repulsed.

Please elaborate...
Typical NeoNut republican. Democrats are corrupt too. Okay, please give me some examples that don't involve LIEberman (who is a Repblican). I will make a list for you about the GOP.

1. Trickle down economics. Was and always will be a lie designed to redistribute wealth upwards.
2. Iraq. Lies to get in and lies since we've been in. 50% of the US still thinks Iraq had something to do with 9/11. I wonder why?
3. Banckruptcy reform. The love letter to the credit card industry.
4. Tax cuts in a time of war.
5. Hate mongering. Anti-gay laws.
6. The Cuban gulag.
7. Americans don't torture. Except when they do.
8. George Bush's signing statement.
9. election 2000 and 2004. Diebold machines. Enron shipping employees to Florida to disrupt the re-count. FAUX news announcing the election for Bush.
10. Stay the course, even when the course makes no sense.
11. Ignoring international treaties and commitments.
12. The largest budget deficit in the history of the world.
13. Rove.
14. Outing a CIA agent.
15. Tapping the phones without warrants.
16. Bush flip-flops on Bin Laden all the time.
17. Bush is a moron.
18. Bush thinks the American people are mornons.
19. Jeff Ganon.
20 Abramoff.
21. Matt Drudge - let's blame the children

And that is just off the top of my head. I don't look at any party to solve all our problems but, it seems obvious, that their is one party that keeps making more of them. I don't know anyone (because I don't know any millionaires) who are better off than they were before Bush stole the presidency. We have more debt, less security, and more enemies abroad. And, since the ReTHUGlican party owns all three branches of the government, they are the ones to blame.

So please, post your list of the evils of the Democratic party. I know you GOPers love to throw out strawmen, but it doesn't work with me.

Please
The moral rot of the ReTHUGlican party is stinking up this place. I will no longer fall into the trap that the Democrats by letting Nenonutters control the debate. Clinton's record stands for itself and history will place him accordingly. Junior will be remembered as the worst president in the history of the US and these times will be remembered for the beginning of the end of the morally corrupt GOP. The way I see it, in the last 24 hours, the GOP has equated being homosexual with being a pedophile. Anyone that defends Foley or thinks this man shouldn't be investigated by the FBI is support pedophilia. Anyone that supports Hastert is saying that it is okay to look the other way when you know someone is a pedophile.

So, I have two questions for all the morally superior republicans here.

Why do Republicans hate children?

And

Why can't Republicans take responsibility for their actions?



You ALL are being conned on this one...
The sniping back and forth is solving NOTHING. Both parties have truned us away from the issues at hand....stop the arguing about who knew what, when and start thinking about ISSUES, people. Those political pundits are doing the job they get paid to do...to turn your heads to a salacious story. It is a slight of hand trick...they are sliding things passed us that we are missing....c'mon...we took our eyes off the ball during the Clinton admin with the Monica thing...don't let it happen again!!

Character Counts
M Foley, B Clinton, B Frank or T Jefferson. They all (and others like them) share a common flaw of character: they lack self-control. And in place of self control, the elevate self-satisfaction and self-indulgences of the grosser nature. Whether it is with a housekeeper, a page or an intern, we have elected people who lack self-control and elevate self-satisfaction. Yet we trust them to watch out for "our" best interests?
Character counts, and when I go to the polls in November, not only will political philosophy influence my vote, but so will personal conduct.
It is time (and it has been time for a quite a while now) that we elect honourable men and women. When they, as our elected officials model honor, decency and self-control, then we can trust them to represent our best interests.
Political representatives on all levels schmooze their way past dishonourable character to win a popularity contest of unthinking voters who flock together as "sheeples" and who lack a moral compass themselves.
How well do you know the moral consciousness of your elected officials?
Do they practice one form of self-indulgences while condeming another?
Do they have wavering standards of acceptable conduct?
Do you know?
Do you care?


..and in case you did not know..
these threads are loaded with pundits looking for talking points and soft spots with which to jab each other....STOP THE ARGUING AND NAME CALLING>>>> It is serving no one.

rd

"And you're dreaming if you think 26 years is far enough in the past to take it off of the table as an excellent example of the identical situation except that the DEMOCRAT was celebrated, reelected, and lived happily ever after. It's not."

Not identical. Based on current suspicion of Foley, what Studds did was worse. BUT...

The majority hardly celebrated him, I have no idea how happily he lived, and I can't fathom the people of Mass. re-electing him. But you can't blame anybody for that except the people of Massachusetts. Certainly you can't blame the Democratic Congress for the actions of the people of Massachusetts, can you? AND...

23 years (when the censure occurred) is a long time. There aren't too many congressmen around now who were around then. Society in general was much different 23 years ago - what makes Congress different?

The ethical and scandal-related situation in Congress was vastly different then than it is now. Newt Gingrich is responsible for much of that change, as he led the fight for Studds and Crane to be expelled. He also ran Jim Wright out of town on charges that seem quaint by the standards set by this Congress.

The comparison to Jefferson (LA) is much more apt, though the crimes are very different, because it's current and it's also blatantly illegal/immoral/wrong behavior. And I don't believe the Democrats have "circled the wagons" at all on that. He's an embarrassment and will be going away in a couple of months, either in the election/runoff or in shackles.

.

r0_d1 and Yogsoggoth
"1983 - "sex" scandal was considered LEGAL, OPEN, HONEST" - r0_d1

Explain, if you can, how the Studds' incident is different from Foley's. If anything, the Studds' incident is worse because, according to your own link, Congress concluded that he had sex with a minor, which is IN FACT, ILLEGAL.

general macarthur wrote:

"Here's my problem with this situation, the old double standard by the Democrats. If you remember correctly Clinton forced two generals to retire because of their affairs with subordinate females."

BS - you don't remember correctly. Having an affair with a subordinate is most definitely a court-martial offense. See Paragraph 62 of the Manual for Courts-Martial. Just last year a 36-year veteran General named Byrnes was relieved for adultery, because he had a relationship with another woman after he and his wife were separated but not yet divorced.

Again, why are you folks changing the subject here? Are you not as guilty of partisanship as those you are attacking?

Yogsoggoth wrote:

"They are the party of big business and the party of screw all Americans who make less than a million a year. They are a party that governs to the lowest common denominator and they consistently preach hate and division."

You're overstating this pretty dramatically.

.

r0-d1

"STOP the GOP lies"

You might want to cite a source a little more credible than Wikipedia. I mean, that's your source for information on the Foley matter? That's unfolding hour by hour? Come on. It's a start. Dig deeper.

.

BS detector
In some ways society is different but not so much regarding how we think about adults having sex with a minor. The outrage then should have been greater for Studds because 20 some years ago there was much less tolerance for homosexuals.

And the democrats may not have "circled the wagons" for Jefferson(LA) but they haven't been calling for his head on a platter either, the way they have for Delay or Foley, neither of whom have been proven guilty of any crime.

Can't beat 'em...
I guess y'all are not going to take my advice and stop the arguing...so I will just add my own little thoughts..
I am still looking for the crime that was committed...as far as I have read, there was no sex..just talk...IM and e-mails. So, WHO committed WHAT crime?

Why Morocco?
"Also, that he took the 17 y.o. to Morrocco for boy-toy fun to avoid US laws."

Why not just stay in DC?

Underage where?
"Apparently none of you liberals read the entire piece. You clearly missed the part about Gerry Studds. The DEMOCRAT who HAD SEX with an UNDERAGE PAGE..."

As was pointed out to me yesterday by a Conservative here, 17 is the age of consent in DC. I assume that means consent for sex. As long as it's within district boundaries, he's not breaking the law with a 17-year-old. Still, it's rather icky to be nailing 17-year-olds. Yeah, I know. The line has to be drawn somewhere, and it just happens to be lower in DC.

And most pages are 16 or 17 years old. Convenient, no? Perhaps Congress should just lower the age of consent in DC to 16 and this whole thing can just go away in future times.

Lefties, take a deep breath,
reread the column, jot down the main idea and the supporting ideas, post your comments.

You guys need a mulligan. As of now you missed that left turn at Albuquerque.

since it seems to matter
I don't know why anyone would want to unearth the Studds case to debate his relative virtue compared to Foley. It is tiresome and degrading, as though morality is merely a matter of a legal technicality turning on "age of consent".

Since 1901, the "age of consent" in Washington D.C. has been 16. But if you want to get legalistic about what is and isn't moral, D.C. had a sodomy law in 1983 (§22-3502) which defined sodomy as oral-genital and anal-genital sexual contact by ANY two people. Sodomy was a felony, penalized by up to 10 years of imprisonment and a fine of up to $1000 when the participants are 16 years of age or older. Consent is irrelevant.

So there you have it. If morality is defined by law and nothing else, consensual sodomy with a 17 year-old page was illegal in 1983.

But what more can you say about this, without simply re-emphasizing Cal's point? Behavior that once was considered shameful is now defended and even celebrated. We should embrace a higher standard, by being ashamed.

Just back
Cynewulf is correct. This thread has spun away from reality.

Much earlier, I posted an analysis of the original article.

The links that r0_d1 suggests say: 1983, one Republican and one Dem guilty of sex scandal. Could be called bi-partisanship. Republican lost election, Dem won.

The Monica link provides a study in definitional arguments. What is a "sexual relationship" for example. She does say that Clinton was not really a stand-up guy (no pun intended) about their affair but could have been in his book, "My Life."
Clinton denied having had "a sexual affair," "sexual relations," or "a sexual relationship" We must wonder exactly what to call it. Without getting glib, surely the behavior cannot be condoned. No matter what persuasion, Dem, Republican, etc., we cannot easily excuse or gloss over such conduct in our leaders. If Pres. Bush ever did such a thing, I doubt that the cry that would arise would be Democratic support and understanding. (Read Cal's post again)

Lastly, the Foley citation involves the investigation of fast breaking news and the FBI investigation. I fail to see how these sites are providing conclusive evidence of one-sided corruption. Additionally, in my previous posts I never did deride Hillary Clinton. Rather, her actions under duress were commendable. Nor do I see anyone giving Foley a pass, other than the one we all get: presumed innocence until proven guilty. I'm sure we'll continue to hear more.

The posts by r0_d1 are puzzling. Clearly, Dems and Republicans misbehaving and being guilty of moral failure, as suggested by r0_d1's three sites, supports my previous post indicating that corruption knows no political boundaries.

Yogsoggoth's "list"

1. Trickle down economics. Was and always will be a lie designed to redistribute wealth upwards.
2. Iraq. Lies to get in and lies since we've been in. 50% of the US still thinks Iraq had something to do with 9/11. I wonder why?
3. Banckruptcy reform. The love letter to the credit card industry.
4. Tax cuts in a time of war.
5. Hate mongering. Anti-gay laws.
6. The Cuban gulag.
7. Americans don't torture. Except when they do.
8. George Bush's signing statement.
9. election 2000 and 2004. Diebold machines. Enron shipping employees to Florida to disrupt the re-count. FAUX news announcing the election for Bush.
10. Stay the course, even when the course makes no sense.
11. Ignoring international treaties and commitments.
12. The largest budget deficit in the history of the world.
13. Rove.
14. Outing a CIA agent.
15. Tapping the phones without warrants.
16. Bush flip-flops on Bin Laden all the time.
17. Bush is a moron.
18. Bush thinks the American people are mornons.
19. Jeff Ganon.
20 Abramoff.
21. Matt Drudge - let's blame the children

is fairly unrefined. Simple listing of names with assumed guilt of unspecified crimes is what I routinely get from freshmen in their first papers. It reads more like a list to peers that agree on the meaning. That is not bad in and of itself. I receive "preaching to the choir" fundraising letters all the time that talk to me as if I were an assumed constituent and in full agreement with particular agendas. It's a useful thing to do for fundraising. However, in an open forum it loses usefulness for productive dialogue.

Cal's post was excellent.

Still can't find a crime here...
You mean those 20/20 (?) shows baiting the crook to show up for sex with minors? I believe that is different..the perps show with liquor, condoms and other stuff in order to complete the sex act. There was no sex in this case, as least none that was reported...so sex talk is a bit different. Someone, please tell me what crime was committed. If what transpired between this Foley creep and the DC pages is considered sex then half the hip hop world should be indicted for the same crime, half of the music world, including Britany Spears and Madonna are guilty of a like crime. Their target fan base is 12 and 13 year olds..perhaps we need to stop the garbage at that level. THAT SAID, I AM GLAD HE RESIGNED. HE NEEDS HELP.

Derek Leaberry
Derek Leaberry writes: Tuesday, October, 03, 2006 10:35 AM

>>>"Look for traditional conservatives to stay home in droves from the polls, betrayed once again by the Republican elite. "

Good point. But "traditional" conservatives are not the homophobic ones ... if you mean Goldwater or Taft Republicans.

I think you mean the newer (social)conservatives.



and RO-D1
I don't watch a whole lot of TV but I did see one of those you refer to...sick sob's...but showing up for sex vs. talking garbage are two different things. If Foley was not so ashamed of himself I think a smarmy lawyer would argue his case that there was no crime...it would be like threatening someone with harm in some fashion but never doing anything. No act was committed so therefor no crime....do I make sense?

On the other hand....
Tyson Vivyan is on O'Reilly right now...I may have to reconstruct my thought...stay tuned

Mahatma Mama
Mahatma-mama writes: Tuesday, October, 03, 2006 11:07 AM

>>>>"Apparently none of you liberals read the entire piece."

Another bigot who claims everyobe who disagrees with him or her must be a liberal -- assuming, of course, that all conservatives are clones of easch other.

>>>>"You clearly missed the part about Gerry Studds. The DEMOCRAT who HAD SEX with an UNDERAGE PAGE and was CELEBRATED for it by his fellow DEMOCRATS and given campaign money by HOMOSEXUAL GROUPS."

No, it's you who missed the point. Studds and Foley are BOTH wrong ... and you need a cite to support your claim that Studds was celebrated by Democrats ... especially when you call Cal Thomas a liar for reporting that "Studds was censured by the House, but famously turned his back to the Speaker in an act of disrespect and rejection of the judgment by his colleagues."

>>>>"So take your phony outrage home and clean your own house. "

Who are you defending, slick -- Studds, Foley, or both?


What..?
I think his story is full of holes. Did he stop the communication with the Representative?..NO..I think there is a full head of steam from the Democrat party attempting to smear not only Foley but the Republican party. It is strategised to obvious proportions. I smell Carville and Begalla

Preofblog
Profblog writes: Tuesday, October, 03, 2006 4:51 PM

>>>"If the affair with Monica was "consensual" how did the wife get left out of the loop? "

Open your dictionary.

Learn the meaning of consensual.


Additionally,
Our youngest son was page when he was 16. I have asked him if he thought anything like that was going on and what would he do if he felt threatened in such a fashion....he would let us know, immediatley. There are just too many cooks in this kitchen and they are all looking to spoil the pudding...this story, while disgusting on it's very merit, stinks to high heaven, of manipulation and character assasination. Foly is out..and good...but let's put it in perspective...and stop this witch hunt. So far, no one has talked about the issues..as in why we are voting for a specific person...Issues, anyone?

Sandy
Sandy writes: Tuesday, October, 03, 2006 6:15 PM

>>>>"I am still looking for the crime that was committed...as far as I have read, there was no sex..just talk...IM and e-mails. So, WHO committed WHAT crime?"

Where do you see anybody claiming a crime?

Be specific.

Cal I see the Light
Foley republican resigned in discrace, Stubbs democrat applauded reelected.

Foley republican, homosexual Cybersex or whatever the perverted moral relativist call it, with an underaged boy.

Stubbs democrat, plied under an underaged boy with alcohol and raped him.

This makes since. I see the difference now, I am enlightened. Cal, there is no traitors amoung us, only liberals.

To a liberal nothing is abhorent, accept conservatives and there values which to them are aberrent.

Republicans are held to a higher standard, democrats have no standards.

Now I know why liberals act as if there was no terrorist before 9/11, believe the Clinton is a hero, and applauded Stubbs.

Oh I forgot, Foley resigned in disgrace, opps he was a republican which is abhored.

Well, when Jonny Joe Jihadi is cutting off your liberal heads, I wont interfear because his behavior in not aberrent to you.

Afterwards I will exercise "gun control" another liberal value. However, to a conservative that means a tight shot group which I'm sure is another conservative value you abhore.

Good Luck






Cal, I see the Light
Foley republican resigned in disgrace, Stubbs democrat applauded reelected.

Foley republican, homosexual Cybersex or whatever the perverted moral relativist call it, with an under aged boy.

Stubbs democrat, plied under an under aged boy with alcohol and raped him.

This makes since. I see the difference now, I am enlightened. Cal, there is no traitors among us, only liberals.

To a liberal nothing is abhorrent, accept conservatives and there values which to them are aberrant.

Republicans are held to a higher standard, democrats have no standards.

Now I know why liberals act as if there was no terrorist before 9/11, believe the Clinton is a hero, and applauded Stubbs.

Oh I forgot, Foley resigned in disgrace, opps he was a republican which is abhorred.

Well, when Johnny Joe Jihadi is cutting off your liberal heads, I wont interfere because his behavior in not aberrant to you.

Afterwards I will exercise "gun control" another liberal value. However, to a conservative that means a tight shot group which I'm sure is another conservative value you abhorred.

Good Luck


Profblog,
So far, I believe you have the best summary of the column (post at 3:37 PM). It doesn't look like any of the lefties want to discuss the column or your summary of it. It seems they've been too busy ranting to even notice it. Sadly, the only thing that surprises me is that they haven't blamed Bush for it yet.

r0_d1..no pervs here!!
Foley DID break 'laws' he spoke about with John Walsh...that makes him a sneaky dirtball slime..I said I want to know what 'crime' was commmited...there was no body contact...no penetration.(ugh! talking about this is giving me the creeps.)Look, I think we are all of the same thought..the guy is a sick piece of work..but in the real world he did not commit anything...I'm glad he is away and not able to entice other young people..but I think a judge would have a hard time putting him in jail. What would the crime be? and think about the garbage our kids are listening to EVERY day...not too different from what I saw on those e-mails. Eminem and his 'talent' come to mind...!

and Cynewulf, blame George??
Stay tuned...it will come..There is still that stench of Carville and Begalla....and the smell is gettin' stronger.

Now it's lies and coverup...very tiring!
So now we are dealing with lies?....who is surprised at that? I think we impeached the last CIC for lying....
The left is throwing anything against the wall to see what sticks...then they go with it. Now they are into finding out what and when Hastert knew.

What is totally amusing to me is watching the left spin themselves into the ground over this. Someone kindly let them know that the blood dripping from their fangs is showing and is not too attractive.
PS...anyone remember why this is on the front page...??..How soon we forgot the hissy fit pitched by the former President. I guess it workes when you know how to manipulate the public focus so easily...

Pedophile is a Pedophile
I have had the pleasure of arresting pedophiles. It has been my experience that they come from all strata of society. I have no problem with this guy going down the tubes if he broke the law. What I find curious is the detailed disclosures coming from the Dems on this matter. It would be interesting the know if they held onto this information for an extended period of time waiting for an opportunity to overwhelm the Republicans with scandal.

nice, ro_d1...
If I didn't know better, I would have thought you to be a gentleman...sorry for the mistake...you are a 'democrat' and that is really a sad way to describe oneself.
And...no one else on this thread has said there was no crime...just me..so focus you slimey attacks at me...

Brujo Blanco ;-)
..those are also my thoughts...let's just be happy he is out of the public mainstream.

Scandal? What Scandal?
Great article from Cal Thomas. You actually have to read it to understand the point. Apparently some on here didn't read.

The ridiculous point to this case is the partisan politics involved. On the left you have the "evil republican pedophile" crowd. I must admit that it comes across as just a bit pathetic from the party that brought us Barney Franks, Gary Studds, et al. Let's not get wrapped up in the whole 16 vs. 17 year old thing. Sodomy was and is illegal in many states still today. IF Foley committed a crime, and he probably did, he is a criminal. End of story. There are no degrees of criminality. Either you are or you aren't.

The problem is when your party comes out bashing and calling for his head when the same behavior is condoned in your own party, it is a little disengenious.

On the right you have the "democrats are just as bad" crowd. Sort of like my client today who is being sentenced in a vehicular homicide case tomorrow. He wanted to make sure I told the judge "if the other guy hadn't been there this would never happen." (as an aside, I will not be telling the judge that). Saying the other side is just as bad is non-productive and makes you look ridiculous.

I happen to view this as follows (and I'm in Florida though not in his district):
1)Foley should be gone (he is),
2)he had the decency to resign (nice but doesn't alleviate the problem) rather than being forced out,
3)he's now blaming, though perhaps indirectly his sexual preference and/or the church, and/or alcohol (loses any points with me for resigning based on this ridiculous fabrication or blameshifting),
4) any senior leadership who knew ahead of time and did nothing should be shown the door immediately,
5) the members of the opposing party who are piling on need to shut their pie holes as they have no moral ground to stand on,
6) and finally I have totally lost faith in the republican party as a true espouser of my principles (not just based on this incident). It is unfortunate there is no viable third party to vote for.

And Sandy...congrats on the Dodgers making the playoffs...however...WE WON! Of course we lost to the Cardinals today. But the chance still exists that we could play you guys for the right to go to the world series.

Go Dodgers!!
So, that is what all the yelling is about in the family room...I have been hibernating..when baseball or football in on, the men in the house get a "little nuts"!!!! So, I will either join the fun or retire to reading. I am a closet Dodger fan, though. May the best team win.
Thinking on that...why can't we be like sports
fans when it comes to our politics...support the guys in the playoffs and cheer the winner on when they win the prize.
Anyway, ro_d1, I don't think I misunderstood what you wrote..however, what I think or don't think is not the issue...all this crazy name calling and trying to destroy an opponent is ruining the COUNTRY...we still need to argue ISSUES and POLICIES....something that gets pushed aside when we start talking personalities.

Sandy
Sandy writes: Tuesday, October, 03, 2006 10:49 PM

>>"...no one else on this thread has said there was no crime...just me."

Several have. Including me.


Stubbs Applauded????

Never underestimate the intense gullibility of knee-jerk conservatives. Not all conservatives ... just the knee-jerk variety, who are about as useful as knee-jerk liberals.

How many have stated, right here on this page, that Gerry Stubbs' pedophilia was "applauded" in the US Congress?

Do they also believe the earth is flat? That the moon is made of green cheese? That Saddam had WMDs?

The guy was actually censured by the House ... a Democratic House.



Twodog,
great post.

"Apparently some on here didn't read." You've got that right!

r0_d1
r0_d1 writes: Tuesday, October, 03, 2006 11:45 PM

>>>"How old was the Stubbs charge and how old the "child" compared to age of consent??

I have no idea. Why do you ask?

>>>>"How old is Foley "child" and who hid what?"

I have no idea. Why do you ask?

All I said (recently) is that only a moron would believe Stubbs' pedophilia was applauded in the House.

(I'm still wondering -- having asked several times -- who did Clinton rape? And how can one prove it?)

First we see a lot of accusations ... then we see the accusers running away from them.





Sandy :-)

Sandy blurted out:
>>>>"I am still looking for the crime that was committed...as far as I have read, there was no sex..just talk...IM and e-mails. So, WHO committed WHAT crime?"


I responded:
"Where do you see anybody claiming a crime?"
"Be specific."


Sandy falls into the hole:
Sandy writes: Tuesday, October, 03, 2006 9:09 PM
""I believe if you watch 20/20 you will see that to COMMUNICATE SEX TO A MINOR IS A CRIME,"" says above poster r0_d1...

"And Anti-Partisan_ Righty..was that SPECIFIC enough..?"

Specific enough to prove you wrong!!

Sandy concludes:
>>>"PUTZ! "

Thank you for playing.

Here's your sign.


--------

P.S. The age of consent in DC is 16 -- thus not a minor.

----------

Sandy also blurts: Tuesday, October, 03, 2006 10:49 PM
>>>"...no one else on this thread has said there was no crime...just me."

I respond:
Several have. Including me.

---------

Sandy: here's another sign.




Good morning,,,,
I see we're still nailing each other to a cross over opionions....Anti-Partisan_ Righty, I have no idea what you mean when you say "here's your sign." So, your slander is lost on me. And no need to be all snarky, it seems that is the way these threads go...don't agree with someone's opinion..try arrogance...gets everyone fed up. Typical!
Foley is still gone, everyone is still trying to nail jell-o to a wall and the politics game is still slimey....ain't it great to be an American.

ugh!!! the stench
Carville and Begalla are close by....

Clean House, NOW !!!
It is now become perfectly clear that the time is now, to clean up our political house. In the upcoming elections, either local, state or national, do not vote to re-elect ANYONE already in office. Period.

If someone is running for office that has never been elected before, vote for them. I don't care if they are republican, democrat or independent. Vote for them, now.

And also, it's time for term limits as well. A maximum of two terms for any one person and then it's someone elses turn. Let's put an end to career politicians. The founding fathers never intended for our government to work that way.

Oh and while we're at it, its time to impeach and remove the Supreme Court justices that voted against the American People and their private property rights in the recent Kelo decision.

hey n.putz...
...we already have term limits...it's called voting...

rd wrote:

"In some ways society is different but not so much regarding how we think about adults having sex with a minor. The outrage then should have been greater for Studds because 20 some years ago there was much less tolerance for homosexuals."

I would argue that it should NOT have been greater. How could 80-something Congressmen vote against censure for a member having sex with a 17-year-old page?

"And the democrats may not have "circled the wagons" for Jefferson(LA) but they haven't been calling for his head on a platter either, the way they have for Delay or Foley, neither of whom have been proven guilty of any crime."

There are differences, besides the obvious political ones, such as; Jefferson's case was so far along it didn't need any prodding, and Delay was being sheltered by the Republican leadership.

Re: foley, I think they Democrats aren't bothering that much with him, but they're going after Hastert. That's the way I'd be going with it. Foley's already dead. Though they do need to keep his name in the mud to ensure they pick up that seat.

.

rd_01

"Sources listed at bottom at Wiki, MORE than your pointless spew. 'Foley matter', has 47 SOURCES AT BOTTOM. How many did YOU source?"

First off, I can go into Wikipedia and put anything I like in. It's a good place to start, but you have to go deeper to find the source.

You cited a listing of sources - well done! I can trump that: for more information on what I've written - try Google!

You also might want to remove whatever's lodged in your rectum that's making you so ornery.

.

rd_01

"Some mook edited the link and removed the fact that age of consent is 17 in DC."

"That is a problem with open sites like Wiki..."

DING DING DING DING!!!

I'm loathe to use this acronym, but...LMAO.

Sandy wrote:

(among other things)

"I see we're still nailing each other to a cross over opionions....Anti-Partisan_ Righty, I have no idea what you mean when you say "here's your sign." So, your slander is lost on me."

Then how do you know it was slander?

"And no need to be all snarky, it seems that is the way these threads go...don't agree with someone's opinion..try arrogance...gets everyone fed up. Typical!"

Check me if I'm wrong, champ, but he wasn't the one calling somebody a putz.

.

Sandy

You might pay attention a little more closely. It wasn't me who you called a putz (before). Shouldn't really have been that hard, since I included the original poster's name in my post. But, you know, paying attention's hard, as is reading comprehension.

Nice game from the Dodgers today. Great baserunning.

.

This column
deserved better.

cynewulf
Cynewulf writes: Wednesday, October, 04, 2006 9:46 PM

"This column deserved better."

Sorry, but when you seek the support of Christian conservatives, MOST of them bring their values with them ... unlike the partisan bigotry of yourself and Cal Thomas.

Principle over partisanship!


Anti-Righty_Partisan,
Funny, I reread the column and my posts, and I didn't see anyone seeking the support of Christian conservatives. And a call of "principle over partisanship" coming from you is a laugher. Still waiting for you to actually read the column and get the point of it. Take your time; I'm a patient man.

cynewulf
Cynewulf writes: Friday, October, 06, 2006 6:01 P
M

>>AP-R (added by AP-R)
"Sorry, but when you seek the support of Christian conservatives, MOST of them bring their values with them ... unlike the partisan bigotry of yourself and Cal Thomas. "


>>>cynewulf
Funny, I reread the column and my posts, and I didn't see anyone seeking the support of Christian conservatives.


Lemme 'splain it to you, Lucy.

1) The GOP seeks to attract Christian conservatives.

2) Townhall seeks to attract Christian conservatives.

3) Thus -- am I going too fast? -- this page tends to have a large percentage of ......... Christian conservatives.

4) Thus, the readers -- attracted by TownHall, as Christian conservatives, bring their values with them.

5) Based on those values, they trashed Cal's column.

One more time -- cynewulf needs an atheist to explain Christian values to him. I trust we all know why this is true.

>>>>cynewulf
"And a call of "principle over partisanship" coming from you is a laugher."

I'm sure it is, for you -- who, unlike us, would excuse Foley solely because he's a Republican.

Meanwhwile, even the Washington Times is calling for Hastert to resign. That leaves you partisan bigots laughing at me, all alone, and twisting in the wind.


"Lemme 'splain it to you, Lucy"
I'll admit, that line had me laughing.

But onwards.

"Based on those values, they trashed Cal's column."

Your analysis would be spot on except for the minor fact that the people trashing Cal's column are not conservative Christians. Nope, didn't use my crystal ball, but after reading everyone's posts for a while, you get to know a couple of things. Most, if not all, of the posters who attacked Cal's column are die-hard lefties who are either atheists, such as yourself, or agnostics. But you knew that.

"I'm sure it is, for you -- who, unlike us, would excuse Foley solely because he's a Republican." Seeing how no one here excused Foley or even came close to it, I'd have to say that's pretty dishonest of you. But maybe I missed a post out there. Let me know. I do know that I didn't excuse Foley. But you knew that.

"Meanwhwile, even the Washington Times is calling for Hastert to resign." So there's a debate between conservatives over what should happen to Hastert. Some call for Hastert to resign, period. Doesn't matter if he knew anything. He was in charge at the time. Kind of a "captain goes down with his ship" approach. Some think Hastert should stay unless it is shown that he actually knew something and covered it up. Before you bring up the one email, let's put that one to rest:

"'Some newspapers -- including this one -- knew of this message as well and did not find it worthy of a news story because it seemed innocuous. Thus, Democratic charges of a 'cover up' of Mr. Foley's activities by the Republican House leadership seem not only premature but crassly political,' the [Miami] Herald editorialized last week."
"'But the discovery of other, more explicit, messages and confusion over who knew what and when raise questions that require answers -- preferably under oath and soon,' the paper said."
(Taken from Lambro's column).

The Herald is not a conservative paper by any stretch of the imagination. You'll note that no conservatives are saying that they will defend Hastert even if he was hiding something. Again, this is Cal's point. But you knew that.

cynewulf
First, some observations and conclusions.

I believe in plain and direct speaking. And I show more respect for the literacy and intelligence of our READERS here.

For example,when cynewulf keeps repeating the phrase, "But you knew that" -- he or she is calling me a liar." He claims I knew one thing, but claimed the exact opposite.

Very slick, eh?

So I actually acknowledge his skills, when I refer to him as "Slick". If he works so hard at being slick, I submit we should ALL appreciate how skilled he is at BEING slick.

Then there's the "liar" tag. Again, it's not name-calling if I demonstrate precisely how he or she lied. Here, he's not very skilled at it ... or it wouldn't be so obvious.

Now ... on with the show ....

Cynewulf writes: Saturday, October, 07, 2006 11:37 PM

>>AP-R
"Based on those values, they trashed Cal's column."

>>>>>>cynewulf:
"Your analysis would be spot on except for the minor fact that the people trashing Cal's column are not conservative Christians. Nope, didn't use my crystal ball, but after reading everyone's posts for a while, you get to know a couple of things. Most, if not all, of the posters who attacked Cal's column are die-hard lefties who are either atheists, such as yourself, or agnostics. But you knew that."

Wrong again.

My comment was about Christian Conservatives only. This does not deny objections from others -- it simply ignores them, because they don't belong in a comnment about Christian values, do they?

Many negative posts attacked Cal for "excusing" Foley's actions, from a Christian perspective. I, as an atheist, attacked it from a secular perspective -- hypocrisy -- and though I'm a righty myself, I suspect most of the "hypocrisy" opponents could have been lefties. (I'm also a recovering Objectivist, thus quite values-centered, but for non-religious reasons).

Conservative Christians would, in my view, be more concerned with Cal's OBVIOUS lack of values -- which is what I saw in most of the objections -- probably because I expected (and hoped) to see that objection.

But you insist on more, so ....

------------

>>AP-R to cynewulf directly
"I'm sure it is, for you -- who, unlike us, would excuse Foley solely because he's a Republican."

>>>>>"cynewulf:
Seeing how no one here excused Foley or even came close to it, I'd have to say that's pretty dishonest of you. But maybe I missed a post out there.

You missed, uhhhhhhhh, your own words -- which (typically) you failed to include.

I was defending from another of your (slick) insults.

------here's the REAL dialogue

>>>>cynewulf
"And a call of "principle over partisanship" coming from you is a laugher."

I'm sure it is, for you -- who, unlike us, would excuse Foley solely because he's a Republican.


---------------

Well, you ridiculed me -- explicity -- for the principle I was defending. That principle was that Foley was just as guilty as the Democrats named by Cal. Now you decline to reveal your own accusation .... Slick.

And you earlier claim to have seen no objections from (clearly) Conservative Christians, so you trashed them too .... Slick.



--------------

>>>>>>"I do know that I didn't excuse Foley. But you knew that."

Very smooth, quite slick, but see my comments just above. You ridiculed me for condemning Foley.

--------------------

>>AP-R
"Meanwhwile, even the Washington Times is calling for Hastert to resign."

>>>>>cynewulf
So there's a debate between conservatives over what should happen to Hastert.

Yep. As I have both said and inmplied. (When conservatives both agree and disagree with Cal's column, then we call that a debate.)

But once again, you're about a week behind on the news ... as you were with the National Intelligence Estimate.

Summing up -- you basically misrepresented everything you posted ... again ... except for the final portion with which I'd already agreed.

You really need to get a life -- or simply catch up with the news --- this is my last visit tio this web page and thread -- which gives you the last word, if you so choose.

For once, I hope you can avoid the Slickery, or the patronizing comments (anyone who bothers to look will see that I only play defense with you; you are the attacker, and it's almost always personal.)






Play it again, Righty.
"Wrong again.

My comment was about Christian Conservatives only. This does not deny objections from others -- it simply ignores them, because they don't belong in a comnment about Christian values, do they?"

I'm willing to be proven wrong. Show me the conservative Christians on this thread who have trashed Cal's column. I would contend that there aren't any, but maybe I missed one.

"You missed, uhhhhhhhh, your own words -- which (typically) you failed to include." Anyone who wants to read my own words can scroll on up and check them out. They haven't gone anywhere.

"Well, you ridiculed me -- explicity -- for the principle I was defending. That principle was that Foley was just as guilty as the Democrats named by Cal. Now you decline to reveal your own accusation .... Slick." No, I ridiculed you for saying that you put principle before partisanship. I think you would like to do that, but you don't. Go back and read it. Only someone who was deliberately twisting the words that were said would come up with what you came up with.

"You ridiculed me for condemning Foley." Did not. That was an easy one.

"But once again, you're about a week behind on the news ... as you were with the National Intelligence Estimate." I'm not sure how I was a week behind on the news on Foley, since it's been omnipresent (and since I read Blankley's column here on TH. The problem here is not that I'm behind the news, but that you are conflating the arguments here that are specific to Cal Thomas' column with those from other columns. It also shows that you still have not grasped what Cal said in this column. You heard what you wanted to hear, not what he was saying. By the way, someone who can't tell a rusino from a double capp shouldn't be harping on missing one item in the news.

"Summing up -- you basically misrepresented everything you posted ... again " Maybe it's me, but I think you're projecting. And I hate to say that because it's a term that Kimberly over-uses. But I think it's apropos here. Third parties welcome to pass judgement here.

"You really need to get a life -- or simply catch up with the news --- this is my last visit tio this web page and thread -- which gives you the last word, if you so choose." I do need to get a life; I can't believe I've wasted so much of it responding to you. And I should know better. I've seen you in action with other posters. I have only myself to blame. Oh, and I choose.

"For once, I hope you can avoid the Slickery, or the patronizing comments (anyone who bothers to look will see that I only play defense with you; you are the attacker, and it's almost always personal.)" That's funny. I was going to say the same thing. Hmmm. Who started this little tit-for-tat? My, that would be you on Oct. 5th, at 10:17 PM. Cheers for now.

Pedophilia, hosekuervo?
I'm sorry, correct me if I am wrong. According to my good ol' Websters,

- Pedophilia: Sexual desire in an adult for a child (typically pre-pubescent).

I'm shocked I have to explain that to a Lib, because you defend perverts all the time. You should know your constituency by now!
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.