FOLEY REDUX

JIM KOLBE


Just when the political world was settling down from the Mark Foley controversy (come on, as if anything was going to come out of the ethic committee investigation before the election), it is now becoming more and more apparent that there was another congressman who liked to stick his hand in the page cookie jar. This time it's Arizona congressman Jim Kolbe. From ABC:

A source close to former House Clerk Jeff Trandahl told ABC News that Arizona Congressman Jim Kolbe (R-Ariz.) was one of a small number of "problem members" of Congress who page program supervisors complained spent too much time socializing with pages, taking them to dinner or sporting events outside of official duties.

What I'm curious about is the above quote makes reference "a small number of 'problem' members". The piece acknowledges that Foley was also on this list. Was there anyone else? I would tend to assume that if a Democratic member of Congress was on this exclusive list that his name would be up in neon lights on the Mall, so if there are more than two members on this list, is it another Republican. And if so, who is it? How long is this list really? If this list even exists, are steps being taken to deal with the problem members? Did the problem members commit any crimes or were they overly friendly or 'creepy' as the ABC piece notes? Lots of questions here.

PO-TAY-TO, PO-TAH-TO

SEAN HANNITY

John Walsh of America's Most Wanted fame was on HANNITY & colmes recently and he was expressing his thoughts about the Mark Foley scandal. The two had had a working relationship getting child protection legislation passed. Walsh discussed his feelings of betrayal given Foley's stalking of children through the internet, which is basically what the legislation they worked on together would outlaw. Suddenly, Hannity started a bit of a tirade about former New Jersey governor Jim McGreevy's sexual pecadillos (long story short- McGreevy was a closeted gay who was married and who recently came out - he supposedly liked cruising truck stops to engage in sexual activities with men).

Of course, John Walsh quickly distanced himself from the Hannity as it appeared that Hannity was attempting to equate being gay with being a sexual predator of children. Hannity attempted to "clarify" his comments by instead equating sexual predation of young children with cruising for strangers to engage in consensual homosexual activity. And again, Walsh wasn't biting as he made it perfectly clear that consensual sex involving adults has nothing to do with a 52 year old congressman engaging in improper and potentially illegal activity with underage congressional pages. I'm certain that Hannity's attempts at moral equivalency between the two played big with his conservative audience who more than likely would tend to agree with his interpretation. Fortunately, John Walsh is a better man than Sean Hannity and much of his fanbase.

NUKE NEWS IS GOOD NEWS

JOHN GIBSON

Monday on John Gibson's Fox News show, Gibson pondered whether the fact that North Korea had tested a nuclear device was actually a good thing. His exact quote was "Does the fact that the North Koreans actually tested a nuclear weapon balance out the bad news from this Foley scandal?" To which I will reply, "Are you out of your ever-loving mind?!"

What the hell is wrong with the organization that is Fox News that they would revel in the fact that a rogue nation with a mentally unbalanced leader now has the bomb just because it might take the focus off of the Mark Foley scandal? Do they think it is because it will now change the media narrative to national security, a supposed strong suit for the GOP? I would tend to disagree with part of that premise because, if nothing else, this test by North Korea highlights the fact that Bush's refusal to actually engage North Korea in substantive diplomacy is what has led to the current situation.

Now we're faced with a reality where a certifiable nutjob like Kim Jong Il is one step closer to annihilating South Korea or Japan. But, in the skewed reality of Fox-World, this sort of thing should be considered good news because it potentially deflects attention away from the House Republican leadership coverup of the Foley sex predator scandal.

DO IT FOR THE CHILDREN

TOM REYNOLDS

I know that this happened a few days ago, but I wanted to note it so that Tom Reynolds would be included as a candidate for FIVE WORST PEOPLE this coming Friday (and man, is this week gonna be a toughie to whittle down to just five).
For those of you not in-the-know, Congressman Tom Reynolds (R-NY) is the chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee (his main job being that the GOP retains control of the House). He's taken quite a hit over the last few days, and rightfully so, for his role (which was basically a classic "Cover Your Ass" strategy) in the Mark Foley controversy. From the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle:

The congressman said that like anyone who hears a complaint about a co-worker, he alerted his supervisor, in this case House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill. "I don't think I went wrong at all," said Reynolds. "I don't know what else I could have done. What's a good citizen to do?"

Oh, I don't know; how about a little FOLLOW-UP!? You know, since you're taking money from the guy, to the tune of $100,000 this past July, which, by the way, he refuses to part with, saying that "Foley raised the money in an honorable way". Oh, so long as it's honorable, then we're cool? Is that how it works? Well, perhaps I could get some serial killers and rapists to donate some cash, just so long as it's honorable. Does anyone have the number to Idi Amin? Oh wait, he's dead. So much for that.

Anyway, the main point of this post was to draw attention to Reynolds' use of children as a human shield in order to divert the media from being able to ask pertinent questions this past Tuesday. That is one classy bastard, isn't he?

Flanked by about 30 children of supporters and as many parents, Reynolds defended his actions at a news conference late Monday in Amherst.
...
When a reporter suggested to Reynolds that the children step outside in order to have a frank discussion of the sexually charged case, Reynolds declined.

Yes, Tom, far be it from you to actually have to face tough questions. Instead, let's hide behind children. Can you imagine that meeting beforehand?

Tom: Jeez, I really don't want to have to face those reporters. All they'll want to talk about is that damn Foley.

Aide: Well, we could get some children of supporters to stand next to you.

Tom: You mean, like some sort of little kid shield?

Aide: Yeah, that'll be perfect! That way the press won't be able to get down to the nitty-gritty of the controversy.

Tom: Hey, that's a good idea. Can we russle up some kiddies quick? Get some cute ones, oh and make sure they're all white. The press loves little white kids.

Aide: Oh, sir! You're so funny! As if we actually have any black supporters!

Tom: Yeah, that was a pretty good one. Now go get me some fodder, oh I mean, "supporters".

And... scene.

YES, IT MIGHT ACTUALLY KILL HIM

JOE LIEBERMAN

There goes holy Joe again. The man who took great pride in being the voice of morality against President Clinton's indiscretions now cannot find it within himself to question the morality of leaders who enabled a sexual predator. Instead of coming out on the right side of this and standing with his "fellow" Dems on this he once again shows his true colors. And not only will he not dare speak a cross word against the House leadership, but he must once again take a shot a Democrats because they are rightfully outraged that Republican leadership did nothing to stop former congressman Mark Foley.

Joe was on Imus recently and had this to say:

Obviously Foley had to go and he did go. Now to make it into a political question is wrong. Denny Hastert doesn't come to me for advice but if I were him I would tell them get somebody who people in both parties respect in there quickly, immediately.

Um, Joe? This is not a "political question". This is a question of whether House leadership knew (and they most certainly did) that Mark Foley was sexual predator and that they let him continue to hold a position of leadership in the House and that this same leadership felt it more important to protect their own political interests than to protect innocent children.

Joe, this is about accountability, something this Congress is not at all familiar with, if we are to go by the fact that they never actually hold anyone accountable for anything. And I know that the concept of accountability is pretty foreign to you given that voters in your state held you accountable for you unwavering support of Bush's folly in Iraq, yet you completely ignored them and chose to run anyway. Accountability means something in every level of life - personal, professional, political. Even a small child understands that if he breaks a vase, there will be consequences. He understands that he will be held accountable. Why is accountability such a difficult concept to grasp by those in the highest seats of power in this government?

UNFIT! CORRUPT! EVIL?

DENNY HASTERT

Back on Monday, Paul Begala appeared with Bay Buchanan on CNN and he had a couple of things to say that I found thought-provoking so I've been sitting on for the last few days. I kept wanting to get to them; it's just that new stuff kept coming out all the time and I never got the chance. Here's a fairly accurate transcript from that appearance (you can see the video on YouTube):

They covered it up. This is not a partisan thing; this is what happens when you're in power for too long. Look, Lord Acton was right - absolute power corrupts absolutely. There was a moment of crisis; there was a moment of conscience; it was a moment that shows character and Dennis Hastert showed himself to be a man unfit for high office. So did anyone else who knew about this and did nothing. ... And the fact that Speaker Hastert has just been so corrupted by power; he's not an evil man, but he's been too powerful for too long. He just cannot see beyond his partisan interests.

I think Begala really hit some important points here. Personally, the only part that I disagree with Begala on is the part where he doesn't think that Hastert is evil. Given all that's happened over the past week, it is the only conclusion that I can draw. After all, the man is more interested in saving his own ass than protecting children from sexual predators. In politics, I understand (cynical though it may be) that staying in office is the most important job facing an officeholder, but to attempt to do so at the expense of children's safety crosses a line for me. This week has proven that the Republicans will say and do anything they can to stay in office. Absolutely anything. I truly believe that given a choice between losing Congress and doing some sexually deviant act with a blood relative (or animal, if you're Santorum), they'd probably light up a cigar and gladly go to town on their loved one. Too creepy for you? How about this - Denny Hastert is one of the leaders of a party that has sacrificed the lives of our armed forces for no legitimate reason whatsoever in order to construct a campaign of fear and scare the crap out of the voters to get them to vote Republican. And that to me is evil.

A VICTORY FOR THE TERRORISTS

DENNY HASTERT


I'm trying to wrap my head around this one, but I'm having a little trouble. Maybe if I write it down...
Okay, so this whole Foley controversy, being the liberal conspiracy that it is, is an attempt to undermine Hastert so that he'll be forced to resign. And since Hastert has been such a staunch ally of Bush and his war on terrah, then by getting Hastert to resign, it will actually be a victory for the terrorists.
At least, I think that's what he was implying during his interview with Limbaugh on Tuesday (from Think Progress):

SPEAKER HASTERT: There were two pieces of paper out there, one that we knew about and we acted on; one that happened in 2003 we didn’t know about, but somebody had it, and, you know, they’re trying — and they drop it the last day of the session, you know, before we adjourn on an election year. Now, we took care of Mr. Foley. We found out about it, asked him to resign. He did resign. He’s gone. We asked for an investigation. We’ve done that. We’re trying to build better protections for these page programs.

But, you know, this is a political issue in itself, too, and what we’ve tried to do as the Republican Party is make a better economy, protect this country against terrorism — and we’ve worked at it ever since 9/11, worked with the president on it — and there are some people that try to tear us down. We are the insulation to protect this country, and if they get to me it looks like they could affect our election as well.

So, am I reading this correctly? Actually, now that I think about, I believe that I've stumbled upon the grand conspiracy! Perhaps this whole thing was started one day a few years ago while bin Laden was chilling in his cave with his buddies. They realized after their masterstroke on 9/11, they would need to do something for an encore. And since they knew that their greatest rival was not George W. Bush, but House Speaker Denny Hastert, they knew they'd need to develop a devious plan to take down the portly bastard. That day the plan, ominously referred to as the "Hastert Operation" was hatched. It was complicated and would take some time but the evil terrorists knew that they could wait the weak-willed Americans out. First, al Qaeda agents would pose as 16 year old pages who would worked diligently to entice that poor victim Mark Foley. And since, according to Matt Drudge, these 16 and 17 year olds are so damn seductive, what else was Foley suppose to do but trade creepy emails with them talking about masturbation techniques. Then, since the terrorists and the Dems are totally in cahoots, they cooridinated when the emails and IMs would be released. Then, since Foley was just a cog in the grand scheme, he would quickly be cast aside and the trap would be sprung on Hastert. Hastert is forced to resign within a few days of the scandal breaking and ba da bing, ba da boom the American democracy collapses. It's brilliant, I tells ya!

OR ...

Hastert is a power-drunk pig who will do and say anything to hang onto his position including sitting idly by while a member of his caucus stalks underage boys.

That first one sounds like a hoot, but I'm thinking it's the second one. My readers can decide for themselves.

A VOICE OF REASON?!

MICHELLE MALKIN


Yes, you can stop laughing. Michelle Malkin is actually viewing this the proper way. From her blog:

At this point, I think the GOP is making a mistake banging the drum so hard over the apparent far left/MSM orchestration of the story. However long the other side sat on the e-mails and IMs, the fact is that Mark Foley--and Mark Foley alone--is responsible for giving his enemies something to spring upon his campaign in the first place.

Of course, guys like Sean Hannity are obviously not heeding Malkin's wise words on this. From Hannity (via http://thinkprogress.org/2006/10/03/hannity-conspiracy-video/:

HANNITY: Who knew? Why did they leak it now, 30- some-odd days out of an election, when they had this for three years? That’s a big question in my mind.
...
HANNITY: But do you think politics is involved in the timing of the release of this, after the Republican primary in Florida, which makes it difficult to replace his name on the ballot, which you can’t do, in other words, to replace the candidate?
...
HANNITY: We see a lot of things unfolding just before an election. You see that this is just pure politics. Is there any principle left?
...
HANNITY: Apparently some of these instant messages are three years old. So I think we all have to have a question raised here. I want to know why these instant messages were held back until now. Who knew about them? Why did they hold them back? Did they do it for political reasons? In other words, were they held back to maximize the political impact before an election?

Jeez, Sean! We get it! You think that the Dems sat on this until just before the elections. It doesn't matter how you phrase the question, you're still barking up the wrong tree. First of all, Dems were purposely kept out of the loop on this, and second (and most importantly), it doesn't matter!!! Foley is a sexual predator looking to score with underage boys. Malkin said it best - "the fact is that Mark Foley--and Mark Foley alone--is responsible for giving his enemies something to spring upon his campaign in the first place."

See, for once, Malkin was able to put politics aside. Do you know what she sounds like - a mother. A mother who cares about sexual predators that have easy access to children like Foley did. When I first read her post, I was in shock because I believe that it may actually be the first time that I agree with her. She is right on the money on this one. And honestly, if I can agree with Malkin on something, then I guess there's hope for us all.

A CHANGE WILL DO YOU GOOD

MARK FOLEY


Wow, it's been quite a couple of days for you, Mark Foley. You resign from Congress after it comes to light that you've got a thing of pages, you enter a rehab facility for "alcoholism", and on Monday your lawyer releases a bombshell that you're gay and that you were molested by a clergyman about forty years ago. Dude, you got more done in a couple of days then most folks do in a week, and now, just to make your life a little more lively, you've now switched your party affiliation to Democrat?! WHAT!?! Well, that's what it said on Fox News, and we all know they never lie, right? Just check out the photo below (props to The B-Side and Democratic Underground):



Boy, that's some subtle work by the Fox News guys, isn't it? I know that the GOP operatives over there have been trying to deflect attention from the controversy by bringing up some Dem scandals, but to actually try some hack subliminal ploy is quite a reach. Just when you think they can't sink any lower...

WIN BEN STEIN'S SOUL

BEN STEIN


Ben Stein provides his take on the Mark Foley controversy:

On the one hand, we have a poor misguided Republican man who had a romantic thing for young boys. He sent them suggestive e-mail. I agree, that's not great. [...] I hope it won't come as a surprise to anyone that a big part of male homosexual behavior is interest in young boys.

Of course, it's okay for him to say things like this because some of his best friends are gay:

Don't get me wrong. My very best friend is gay. I have many gay friends and they are great people. But how the Democrats, the party of gays, can be coming down this hard on a [member of Congress] who's gay is simply beyond belief. One of my top, favorite congressmen, Barney Frank, is openly gay. Might he say a word in defense of his fellow gay [member of Congress] right about now?

Hmm, that's a great point, Ben. Why doesn't Congressman Frank stand up and defend his fellow gay colleague? Oh, yeah, that's right. Because Barney Frank isn't a sexual predator looking to molest underage children! It's completely infuriating that he thinks the two are compatible as if gay = boy lover. And I wonder, since his best friend is gay, if he's ever confronted him on how much he loves young boys. After all, it is a big part of gay behavior. And one would think that since it is, perhaps Ben should report his best friend in order to keep the children of the world safe from the millions of gays who are all about the young boy lovin'.

Oh, and in Ben's world, stalking an underage boy is the moral equivalent of participating in consenual, though inappropriate, sex:

On the other hand, we have a Democratic party that worships (not likes, WORSHIPS) a man named Bill Clinton who did not send suggestive e-mails as far as we know, but who had a barely legal intern give him oral sex kneeling under his desk in the Oval Office [.]

Jeebus, asshole! Do you honestly believe this? Are you so blinded by your ultra-partisan views that you cannot see the difference between the two? What Clinton did was wrong on a number of levels. What Foley has done is wrong and ILLEGAL on a number of levels. If you really refuse to see the difference, then there is no helping you.

THEY WERE ASKING FOR IT

MATT DRUDGE


You just knew it was coming. You knew that there would be some classless jerkface who would make the argument that the 16 and 17 year old male pages were actually to blame for Mark Foley's problems. After all, isn't that how it always works with pedophiles - it's the kids' faults for being so damn seductive.
And this is almost exactly what one Matt Drudge said. Here is one clip transcript, courtesy of Jane Hamsher at Firedoglake:

And if anything, these kids are less innocent — these 16 and 17 year-old beasts…and I've seen what they're doing on YouTube and I've seen what they're doing all over the internet — oh yeah — you just have to tune into any part of their pop culture. You're not going to tell me these are innocent babies. Have you read the transcripts that ABC posted going into the weekend of these instant messages, back and forth? The kids are egging the Congressman on! The kids are trying to get this out of him. We haven't got the whole story on this.

First of all, "beasts"?! What the hell is that? Next, he's seen what "they're doing on YouTube" and all over the internet - am I the only one who is wondering my Matt Drudge is trolling around YouTube looking at what underage kids are doing? In fact, much like the first documented email from Foley to an underage boy should have raised big red flags, I'm sort of thinking that what Drudge is saying here is raising all kinds of red flags with me. Seriously, this is really kind of creepy. Then he continues by outright blaming the kids for egging Foley on. Um, I can dangle a lure all day in the water but it's not my fault if the fish decides to take the bait; and that's even giving Drudge the benefit of the doubt that the kids were actually trying to bait Foley.

Drudge continues on this insane path with more "blame the boys" nonsense:

You could say "well Drudge, it's abuse of power, a congressman abusing these impressionable, young 17 year-old beasts, talking about their sex lives with a grown man, on the internet." Because you have to remember, those of us who have seen some of the transcripts of these nasty instant messages. This was two ways, ladies and gentlemen. These kids were playing Foley for everything he was worth. Oh yeah. Oh, I haven't…they were talking about how many times they'd masturbated, how many times they'd done it with their girlfriends this weekend…all these things and these "innocent children." And this "poor" congressman sitting there typing, "oh am I going to get any," you know?

I again refer you to my previous statement. It doesn't matter if they were offering Foley a million dollars to talk dirty to them, adults cannot and should not and must not engage in any sort of questionable behavior with underage boys. End of story. That Drudge is actually using this as a jusitification demonstrates two points - that the GOP and their mouthpieces will go to any lengths to hold onto the power they've held in the House for the past twelve years and that there is no way that anyone should ever leave a little boy in the same room alone with Drudge, lest they tempt him with the sexual wiles.

ON THE PROWL

MARK FOLEY


News has been flying for the last few days and it just keeps getting worse and worse, both on a political level for the GOP and on a personal level as we seem to be getting more and more glimpses into the mind of a sexual predator.
The latest is that Foley apparently attempted to meet with one of the boys, which is sort of a big deal. Why? From ABC: "Federal law enforcement officials say attempts by Foley to meet in person could constitute the necessary evidence for a federal charge of "soliciting for sex" with a minor on the Internet. "

Here is some of the inappropriate exchanges from the latest instant messages released. (Foley's handle is Maf54):

Maf54: I miss you lots since san diego.
Teen: ya I cant wait til dc
Maf54: :)
Teen: did you pick a night for dinner
Maf54: not yet…but likely Friday
Teen: ok…ill plan for Friday then
Maf54: that will be fun

The messages also show the teen is, at times, uncomfortable with Foley's aggressive approach.

Maf54: I want to see you
Teen: Like I said not til feb…then we will go to dinner
Maf54: and then what happens
Teen: we eat…we drink…who knows…hang out…late into the night
Maf54: and
Teen: I dunno
Maf54: dunno what
Teen: hmmm I have the feeling that you are fishing here…im not sure what I would be comfortable with…well see

Of course, this stuff is relatively tame compared to his conversations regarding masturbation techniques with an underage boy, but it does not make them any less frightening. And the GOP leadership knew that this sort of thing was happening. Apparently they were only hoping to keep things quiet. After all, power is everything to them and they will say and do whatever is necessary in order to retain that power. Even if it means protecting a sexual predator like Foley.

NO BIG DEAL

TONY SNOW

Attention! Attention!! The new GOP talking points are out! Hot of the presses!

White House Press Secretary Tony Snow was the first to introduce them as the Republicans try desperately to put the cat back in the bag in regards to the Mark Foley controversy/coverup. Knowing full well that a scandal of this nature could potentially keep turnout down among evangelicals (the bread-and-butter of the GOP base), the Republican apparatus kicked into high gear in a transparent effort to minimize the political fallout that could end up costing some high-ranking House members their jobs.

Bearing in mind that the best talking points are the simplest talking points (cut-and-run Democrat, Kerry is a flip flopper, tax-and-spend liberals), Snow began the effort to downplay the entire controversy by calling the whole thing "simply naughty emails". He implied that this scandal was minor in the grand scheme of things when he said, "I hate to tell you but it's not always pretty up there on Capitol Hill and there have been other scandals as you know that have been more than simply naughty emails." So, emails and explicit instant messenging exchanges between a member of Congress and underage boys is no biggie in Snow's (and one would assume by extension, the White House's) world. The fact that the GOP House leadership has been aware of Foley's predatory ways for over five years yet did nothing about them is barely a blip on the radar according to Snow.

To Republicans, power is everything. They would rather coddle and protect a sexual predator than risk potentially losing control of the house. Since they like talking points so much, how about if we start referring to the GOP as the party that protects pedophiles. Or the party with no soul.

I'LL HAVE AN ORDER OF OUTRAGE, HOLD THE HYPOCRISY

NEWT GINGRICH

Dare I say, Chris Wallace's Fox News Sunday show may actually be must-see television. After having his ass handed to him by President Bill Clinton last week, he had a somewhat more friendly guest on this week, Newt Gingrich. The main topic of discussion was the Mark Foley controversy, and more specifically, the cover-up by the House GOP leadership. When asked by Wallace if the leadership should have done more, Gingrich's reply is easily an early favorite for line of the year: "... I think had [the House Congressional leadership] overly aggressively reacted to the initial round, they would have been accused of gay bashing."
Yes, you can pick your collective jaws up off the floor now. The party that has spent the better part of ten years doing everything in their power to make gays second class citizens, from the Defense of Marriage Act back in 1996 all the way to this summer's failed attempt to amend the United States Constitution in order to codify discrimination of gays into one of the most important documents ever written; the GOP has been anything but concerned with being accused of gay bashing. In fact, it seems that the exact opposite is more likely the case. This is a red meat issue for the GOP's base - to bash gays is to secure votes. Whatever it is that Newt's trying to pedal isn't going to fly with anyone. Really, it was just a few days ago that Colorado Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave called the fight against gay marriage the most important issue facing America today. Not the Iraq war or the millions of uninsured Americans, gay marriage is the most important issue.

So, Newt, do us all a favor and put away that heaping load of chutzpah you just dropped on us and do not insult our collective intelligence by suddenly being concerned about bashing gays. This case has nothing to do with being gay and everything to do with the Republican leadership aiding and abetting a sexual predator.

IF MARK FOLEY WAS A DEMOCRAT

FOX NEWS and MARK FOLEY


I was putzing around News Hounds and found this hilarious piece. For those not in the know, News Hounds' tagline is "We watch FOX so you don't have to" and they're an invaluable tool for those interested in the latest rightie spin but lack the stomach to take Hannity and O'Reilly haranguing at people. The post in question muses of what Fox News' coverage would have been like if sexual predator Mark Foley had actually been a Democrat.
On Friday House Speaker Dennis Hastert was on Neil Cavuto's show program talking about the stock market "rally". During the interview, passing mention is made of Foley having just resigned and Hastert's response is very low key, something about it being the right thing to do. The host (substitute host David Asman) then ends the "discussion" with very measured and reserved comments like "we don't know the details" so we really shouldn't do any sort of wild speculation at this point - which is actually the right thing to do if you're a respectable news organization. And, of course, Fox News is nothing of the sort, which lead the author of the piece, Melanie, to consider what might have gone down in the Fox News room if Foley was a Dem. I quote the speculation in its entirety:

THIS IS A FOX NEWS ALERT! Again, we have a FOX NEWS ALERT! We have just learned that Florida DEMOCRAT, Congressman Limp Wrist, has been forced to resign his House seat, effective immediately. Again, this is BREAKING NEWS, it just happened a little while ago and we're working on getting all the details for you as soon as possible but since it's BREAKING NEWS we have to go with what we know so far. What we know is that, again, BREAKING NEWS HERE, several days ago, as we've been telling you all along, it came to light that DEMOCRAT Wrist has been corresponding via email, in some very suggestive, sexual ways, with a teenage BOY page at the Capitol. Not knowing how to handle the situation, since, after all, Wrist is a POWERFUL, INFLUENTIAL and PROMINENT DEMOCRAT, a member of the House Ways and Means Committee and DEMOCRAT Chair of the Congressional Missing and Exploited Children's Caucus, the BOY wrote to another congressman, saying he was totally and completely "freaked out" and that what Wrist wrote made him downright "sick." Poor kid.
Our own Greta Van Sustren is on her way to the Capitol building right now and we hope to have a live feed from her in a few minutes. I'm also hearing in my ear that we are trying to get the BOY in for a live interview in the next few minutes -- again, we're working under BREAKING NEWS conditions here -- and we hope to have that LIVE INTERVIEW regarding this crisis for the House DEMOCRATS - for you in this hour. Stay with us. We'll get back to House DEMOCRAT leader Nancy Pelosi, we'll see what she knows about what appears to be developing into a sex scandal involving a House DEMOCRAT, later.
Meanwhile, we'll have lots more -- more live guests and more details as they come in -- we're going to stay with this story affecting House DEMOCRATS for as long as it takes -- more on this BREAKING NEWS after this. Stay with us. This has been a FOX NEWS ALERT. Back in a minute.

Ah, it's good to laugh. Too bad this is pretty much exactly how it would go down if Foley really were a Dem. Van Susteren would be camped out in front of that kid's house (that is, if she can tear herself away from Natalee Halloway) and Hannity would be calling for Foley's public castration and subsequent lynching while yelling that all liberals are soft on sexual predators.

Meanwhile O'Reilly would have Coulter on and she would be angry at her parents for choosing to make her a girl by cutting off her small hermaphroditic proto-penis when she was a baby since she knows that if she had one she'd have a better shot attaining some sort of human contact from a guy like Foley since no man in their right mind will go near the Adam's-appled harpy. All this and more, coming up on Fox News. Stay tuned!

THE REST OF THE STORY?

MARK FOLEY


As I'm sure most of you are already aware, Florida Congressman Mark Foley has resigned effectively immediately from Congress and will not seek reelection this November because of the controversy and probable illegal activity involving Foley sexually explicit email and instant messaging exchanges involving an underage boy. The left blogosphere has been all over this and some of the better stuff out right now can be found at Talking Points Memo and Americablog, among other fine sites.

Where the story takes a turn for the surreal is the fact that apparently GOP House leadership was aware of this going back to the beginning of this year and possibly earlier. The fact that members of the GOP knew that a member of their caucus was involved in what amounts to illegal activity and said and did absolutely nothing about it for all this time is what is really going to hurt the party. It is an extreme example of the culture of corruption within the GOP-controlled Congress. Someone in the party does something wrong? Let's just brush it under the rug. In this instance, it appears that the GOP leadership was complicit in covering up a crime. Based on my admittedly limited study of law, I've always understood that a person who helps cover up a murder is just as guilty as the person who commits the murder. Let's hope that the voters finally hold the GOP accountable for their part in this.

UPDATE: Just read this from a commentor over at Think Progress. I think it sums up the state of the GOP nicely: "I always believed that the worst thing you could do was put party before country, but party before all semblance of human decency? Bravo, Mr. Hastert. "