Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Drudge is now reporting that the infamous IM's were a prank on the part of the page and that friend of said page swear that the page is not homosexual. Evidently the pranksters were passing the IM’s around as a joke on Foley when some Democratic "operatives" got hold of them and leaked them to ABC news.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at October 5, 2006 01:18 PM

This will all die down in a week, or the outing will go balistic. If your looking for creepy behavior Washington DC is a target rich environment. Both sides of the isle are now quite worried the public eye will focus on their behaviors next. I say let the purging begin.

Posted by JJS at October 5, 2006 01:38 PM

It's kind of sad, that Rand can't tell the difference between
sex with a 22 year old woman and a 17 year old boy.
The Lewinsky thing was kind of tasteless, really,
Clinton got a blow job from Miss America, and he's
macking on a kind of chubby LA Jewish Princess?

Seriously, Clinton should have been aiming higher.
Seducing Liddy Dole, and getting a three-way from
Mary Matalin and Ann Coulter.

Clinton should have been smart and admitted he was
nailing Lewinsky, but, there was never anything
criminal about it, much as the Puritanical
Judge Starr wanted to make of it.

Now Foley appears to be in violation of the
Internet Predator Act, oh well, and,
if the Leadership couldn't smack him down, or
get him out of the House, well, that's their problem.

The Democrats are mostly standing back while the
circular firing squad fires

Posted by anonymous at October 5, 2006 04:41 PM

Well anon, who had sex with a 17 year old boy? Not Foley, as far as we know. Maybe you're thinking about Gerry Studds? Barney Frank?

Oh wait, those are two more Democrats who were caught in the same situation and who also did not loose their jobs... do I see a pattern? Do Democrats only complain about sexual predators if said predator isn't a Democrat?

With opinions like yours I really can't fault you for being anonymous.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at October 5, 2006 05:54 PM

You repugasses can never take responsibility can you morons?

Posted by at October 5, 2006 06:25 PM

So a Republican congressman solicited sex from teenage interns. The Republican leadership knew about it and did nothing. Republican staffers (and perhaps even the leadership itself) tried to cover it up.

All these things seem pretty bad.

But the best that Rand can come up with is "Clinton!"

See, this is why some people think that you're a boot-licker for the Republicans. When your side does something egregious, you go looking for a Democrat to accuse of hypocrisy.

Posted by Gordon Grant at October 5, 2006 07:50 PM

Uh oh!

Some know me as a "moonbat" commenter yet now Glenn Reynolds is making sense on an issue of extreme partisan rancor, Foley-gate. Reynolds is making a whole lot of sense. Wow, I guess that is what the term "cognitive dissonance" means!

/snark

Anyway, I urge you all to ignore him. Especially this quote.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Advice to the GOP, from Ed Morrissey: "Unfortunately, they and their supporters have proven resistant to good advice. The sooner we quit trying to win an unwinnable argument, the sooner the air will deflate from this embarassment. If Republicans had done that last Friday, all of the subsequent revelations would have generated drastically less damage to party credibility."

Please, please, please put Dennis Hastert in charge of defusing this mess. For the children.

= = =

PS - If we move away from politics, Glenn Reynolds often makes a great deal of sense and I loved his book "Army of Davids" . . .

Posted by Bill White at October 5, 2006 08:18 PM

Cecil

What Teenage Boys has Barney Frank ever been involved in?

As for Foley, it's just the beginning. I'm sure he will
have turned out to be a pederast, but cecil will just keep
talking about Clinton, and Barney Franks.

Frankly, I don't care if a congressman is gay, or into teenage
boys, or sheep, but to wrap up in the flag of hypocrisy,
well that just stinks.

And Cecil can say what he wants, but, this is Republicans
throwing other Republicans to the wolves. That's good,
especially if it helps to clean up the GOP, which has
become home to the money-changers, the predators, the
criminals and the deluded.

Posted by anonymous at October 5, 2006 09:16 PM

Cecil

Is your contention that really this is okay, because you see
Democrats have done the same thing?

Is the new GOP talking point?

"We are the GOP, Pederasts, homosexuals, Hypocrites, corrupt,
power-abusers, Just like the Democrats. So vote for us,
because you see, we're all the same."

Posted by anonymous at October 5, 2006 09:30 PM

You repugasses can never take responsibility can you morons?

If this is a pathetic attempt to spell "Republicans," I'm not one, you anonymous cowardly moron.

Posted by Rand Simberg at October 5, 2006 09:44 PM

When your side does something egregious, you go looking for a Democrat to accuse of hypocrisy.

The Republicans are not "my side."

Foley resigned, as he should have (at a minimum). Hastert will probably resign, as he should have long ago.

I'm simply pointing out that the Democrats are hypocrites.

Posted by Rand Simberg at October 5, 2006 09:45 PM

Maybe you're thinking about Gerry Studds? Barney Frank?

That was twenty years ago. And just because they did it too, that doesn't make the actions of D-FL Mark Foley... err, R-FL Mark Foley any less reprehensible.

If the Republicans had ANY sense they would have publicly condemned his actions as soon as they hit the press, and then pushed to have hiring policy changed to require that all congressional pages/administrative staff be over the age of majority so that this sordid affair never happens again. Instead they decided to point fingers.

Posted by Chris Mann at October 6, 2006 01:44 AM

Going forward we need a zero tolerance policy concerning Congress-critters and pages. Gay, straight or bi- it makes no difference. These are high school kids for bleeping sakes.

Zero tolerance for anything having even the appearance of impropriety.

Full stop. Period. End of discussion.

= = =

Looking back?

Studds and Franks? Shameful. Deeply shameful. Ted Kennedy? Ditto. But that does not excuse today's events or alter what the policy should be going forward.

Mark Foley? He resigned. Ran away screaming is more like it. Nothing for us to debate concerning Foley.

Hastert? Shimkus? Reynolds? They very likely did nothing illegal. But stupid? Can anyone say they haven't been stupid?

But if the GOP wants to keep these guys as leaders, hey, its your party.

Posted by Bill White at October 6, 2006 07:25 AM

But that does not excuse today's events or alter what the policy should be going forward.

I missed the part where anyone is excusing today's events. I was simply pointing out that the Dems are hypocritical, and shameless.

Posted by Rand Simberg at October 6, 2006 07:49 AM

Rand, every politician (GOP and Democratic) is hypocritical and shameless.

Film at 11.

Posted by Bill White at October 6, 2006 08:16 AM

PS: This is exactly why we need "checks and balances"

If all politicians are hypocritical and shameless, the people need a government where the competing interests of the various factions balance out to prevent any one faction from having unchecked power.

Federalist Paper #10 spells this out explicitly.

Posted by Bill White at October 6, 2006 08:19 AM

The Democrats say the Republicans should have done all the things Democrats won't let us do to al-Qaida — solely because Foley was rumored to be gay.

Wow, how much stupid can you pack into one sentence?

All Democrats will let you wiretap anyone you can get a search warrant for, which includes al-Qaida. Some Democrats are even as cowardly as Republicans, and will let you wiretap anyone at the President's whim.

The Republicans' information about Foley included emails from Foley, not just "rumors", and the information was that he appeared to be hitting on teenage pages, not just that he was gay. Both distinctions are important, as is the fact that Hastert denies ever having seen this information which several other Republicans reported giving him.

Posted by Roy S at October 6, 2006 08:41 AM

Let me spell it out for you idiots (Anon, Mann) who don't get it.

Some of the Democrats who are having conniption fits over Foley are the SAME Democrats who protected Studds, Franks and Clinton.

You're hypocrites, you and your party. You don’t hear any Republicans saying Foley should have kept his seat, unlike Studds/Frank.

I’m not protecting Foley; Foley should be disgraced and most likely should be serving jail time. But so should have Studds, Frank and Clinton.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at October 6, 2006 09:05 AM

Wow, how much stupid can you pack into one sentence?

All Democrats will let you wiretap anyone you can get a search warrant for, which includes al-Qaida.

Nicely answered.

Posted by McGehee at October 6, 2006 09:21 AM

Hm. I forgot this is one of those cantankerous comment engines that unformats between paragraphs. Retry:

Wow, how much stupid can you pack into one sentence?

All Democrats will let you wiretap anyone you can get a search warrant for, which includes al-Qaida.

Nicely answered.

Posted by McGehee at October 6, 2006 09:22 AM

Cecil, I understand the Right believes Hastert is very much better than Pelosi. Fair enough.

But my question is this:

Is Hastert the best House leader the GOP has to offer? A determination to "stand by" Hastert through thick and thin suggests your answer would be "Yes indeed" -- Dennis Hastert is the best leader the GOP has to offer in the House of Representatives.

Posted by Bill White at October 6, 2006 09:38 AM

But the Democrats won't let you wiretap Al Qaeda without a search warrant. This is idiotic in a time of war. It's like saying that we should have gotten a search warrant to intercept and decrypt Japanese and German communications in WW II.

Posted by Rand Simberg at October 6, 2006 10:19 AM

"Is Hastert the best House leader the GOP has to offer?"

Probably not, but he is better than ANYTHING the Democrats have to offer.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at October 6, 2006 12:05 PM

Jon Tester - Libertarian Democrat

Posted by Bill White at October 6, 2006 12:13 PM

no rand, no search warrant is needed to wiretap for foreign intelligence. the constitution does not apply to germans and japanese. however, you need a search warrant to wiretap an american. you are essentially arguing that americans should be treated the same as germans or japanese (in this area at least), that the enemy is american and that the constitution (this part at least) should therefore not apply to americans as well, this is war after all. the only part of this program that is a scandal is all the americans being surveilled with no warrant.

Posted by at October 6, 2006 12:49 PM

"the only part of this program that is a scandal is all the americans being surveilled with no warrant."

Right....you realize these calls originated from overseas numbers. What obligation do we have to check the citizenship of any hostile individuals initiating overseas phone calls?

Posted by Mike Puckett at October 6, 2006 02:05 PM

we are obligated to guarantee certain rights to all american citizens. it doesnt matter who they are talking to, what they are saying, or whether or not they are "hostile".

Posted by at October 6, 2006 02:26 PM

Hmm

As for the wiretaps. It looks like CREW (A Soros funded group) is the source of the emails and only gave the FBI redacted versions (That is they edited them before handing them over). Now why would that be for heavens sake? Hmmm.... maybe it is because they were illegally obtained?

The NSA wiretapping program is for communications between known targets in communication between the U.S. and others in foreign countries.

Now if it is ok to tap phones (remember the tapping of Gingrich's phone a few years ago), steal emails, edit them and then publish them for political gain, then it stands to reason that we should allow our government to tap the communications of those folks who want us dead.

Now there are many democrats that would want republicans dead (including George Bush as the rousing reception of the film depicting that shows) but as a reasonable American would you not want to protect American lives by targeting terrorists and protect the privacy of Americans in email and phone conversations here? Oh by the way it seems that CREW has had these emails since April so spare me their concern for the congressional pages.

Dennis

Posted by Dennis Wingo at October 6, 2006 03:18 PM

"we are obligated to guarantee certain rights to all american citizens. it doesnt matter who they are talking to, what they are saying, or whether or not they are "hostile".

So, if Hitler, Tojo or Bin Laden is on thr other end, we should preserve the 5th columnist citizens rights and hang up right there.

The 4th is a prohibition against 'unreasonable' searches. When one party is a known enemy, no reasonable person can fail to see it easily meets the standards of being reasonable.

I believe it was Abraham Lincoln that stated the Constution is not a suicide pact.

Posted by Mike Puckett at October 6, 2006 05:21 PM

Cecil

How did the Democrats protect Gerry Studds?
The House under Democratic control voted 420-3 with
some abstentions to censure Studds.

Posted by anonymous at October 6, 2006 05:43 PM

Oh my, censure..... I guess they showed him huh?

Posted by Cecil Trotter at October 6, 2006 08:35 PM

So, if Hitler, Tojo or Bin Laden is on thr other end, we should preserve the 5th columnist citizens rights and hang up right there.

Until we can obtain a warrant, yes. Removing the seperation of powers was what gave us Hitler in the first place.

Courts can issue a warrant in minutes, and if Hitler were truly on the other end they would absolutely no reason not to grant it. The only time you are tapping a phone without a warrant is when you don't want your enforcement actions to be on the public record.

Posted by Chris Mann at October 6, 2006 08:40 PM

SO all Al Qaeda would really need to do is keep their phone calls under the five minutes or so it would take to wake the judge up and they're in the clear?

Pretty soon you reach the point where you have to make all your signals intelligence people judges. Does this mean they have to go to law school?

Posted by Phil Fraering at October 6, 2006 09:30 PM

But the Democrats won't let you wiretap Al Qaeda without a search warrant.

Actually that's not true either: the Democrats will let you wiretap Al Qaeda for 72 hours without a search warrant.

Posted by Roy S at October 6, 2006 10:41 PM

Actually that's not true either: the Democrats will let you wiretap Al Qaeda for 72 hours without a search warrant.

Roy S. tells it like it is.

The rest of y'all are a bunch of G-d d--med dips--ts. FISA, which the Democrats support (and many are willing to make even more generous) allows wiretapping prior to obtaining a warrant. But, you have to follow up with the court within 72 hours.

So any of you wondering whether we could wiretap the phone of someone talking with the ghost of m-therf-cking Himmler for less than five minute, YES, you fools, we can.

The only rational reason for their violation of FISA is that they are datamining en masse. They might be applying some selection criteria like, "this dude might be a terrorist's attorney, maybe," but they are datamining.

Perhaps datamining overseas calls is necessary in this case. Similar tactics have been used previously, prior to FISA. Right now it's against the law.

I'll cease my rant before falling into the dark pit of their other transgressions.

Learn how this country is designed to work. You are supporting a president who is stepping blatantly and purposefully beyond the powers granted unto him by the people as enumerated in the Constitution.

Politically I'm completely independent of any party. Party hacks and apologists, of which there seem to be many here, of both major orientations (some of whom are in the closet), infuriate me. Lead through your own ideas. Don't be some party's b-tch.

Posted by at October 7, 2006 12:11 AM

"The rest of y'all are a bunch of G-d d--med dips--ts. FISA, which the Democrats support (and many are willing to make even more generous) allows wiretapping prior to obtaining a warrant. But, you have to follow up with the court within 72 hours."

If you really feel this way, why don't you take your sorry ass and go find a Donkey show for your enjoyment?

There is a seat specially reserved for the unknown phucktard waining for you.

Posted by Mike Puckett at October 7, 2006 12:55 PM

Cecil

please ecplain how censure is protecting Gerry Studds?

It was the same punishment given to Dan Crane and more then
Buzz Lukens got or Jim Hinson

Posted by anonymous at October 7, 2006 04:53 PM

gerry studds' affair was over thirty years ago (though it came out ten years afterward). its kind of illuminating you have to search that far back to find a similar offense on the democrat side. both offenses are reprehensible of course. the scandal is really that the republicans left him in charge of the house caucus on missing and exploited children long after they knew he was hitting on minors. too bad this came out at the same time as the military commissions act, cause thats much more important.

Posted by at October 7, 2006 06:04 PM

"Cecil

please ecplain how censure is protecting Gerry Studds?

It was the same punishment given to Dan Crane and more then
Buzz Lukens got or Jim Hinson

Posted by anonymous at October 7, 2006 04:53 PM
"

Explain how not afterwards assigning him as the chair of a committee is not rewarding him?

Posted by Mike Puckett at October 7, 2006 08:51 PM

More on libertarian Democrats. Is the current DLC leadership libertarian? Nah. Not even close. Not even medium far. Try very far.

Yet how much work remains to kill off the remnants of old "Nanny-State" liberal Left? Seems to me there is little of that remaining, today and if we are to escape from failed leaders like Dennis Hastert, building a more libertarian Democratic party is one direction to proceed.

Here are some more thoughts on how to do that. Not saying I agree with all of these ideas, but thinking outside the box is what America needs right now.

Either we work to replace current Democratic leadership with "libertarian Democrats" or we accept that Dennis Hastert types are the permanent future of America.

Posted by Bill White at October 8, 2006 06:48 AM

Sorry, wrong link

One quote:

II. Reconsider Federalism.
Traditionally, liberal Democrats have supported a strong central government and opposed limits on its power. However, this position was premised on the notion that the federal government will usually (if not always) be under liberal Democratic control.

If you value state's rights, supporting the current GOP is not the route to follow.

That ole' pendelum is swinging on this topic. RNC types shall continue their shift towards giving Washington all the power (since the RNC now controls Washington) and Democrats (who did indeed favor giving Washington all the power) will now swing towards state's rights.

Which is more important? Loyalty to the RNC or to the idea of federalism?

Posted by Bill White at October 8, 2006 06:54 AM

"Which is more important? Loyalty to the RNC or to the idea of federalism?"

So you are admitting you have voted GOP in the last several election cycles becase they were then percieved by you as the more Federalist party?

Posted by Mike Puckett at October 8, 2006 01:39 PM

Cecil

Please explain how Censure was protecting Gerry Studds?

Now I know you are really busy erasing the child Pr0n on your
computer, but i'm sure you can take a minute and type
about this.

Seriously Cecil, compare that to the censure of McCarthy
or other congresspeople

Posted by anonymous at October 9, 2006 01:58 PM

Post a comment