Well, let's see. What's the scorecard?

1. Little if any outrage over Foley's actions

2. Blame the victim (Drudge)

3. Blame the Democrats (Drudge, pundits and Faux news, which went so far as to put up pictures of Foley, identifying him as a Democrat).

4. Blame gayness.

5. Blame alcohol.

6. Fire a subordinate

I guess the only thing left is to blame Canada, eh?

This just in … there’s no Dem dirty trickster.

Longtime Republican was source of e-mails
?By Alexander Bolton

The source who in July gave news media Rep. Mark Foley’s (R-Fla.) suspect e-mails to a former House page says the documents came to him from a House GOP aide.

That aide has been a registered Republican since becoming eligible to vote, said the source, who showed The Hill public records supporting his claim.
The same source, who acted as an intermediary between the aide-turned-whistleblower and several news outlets, says the person who shared the documents is no longer employed in the House.

But the whistleblower was a paid GOP staffer when the documents were first given to the media.

The source bolstered the claim by sharing un-redacted e-mails in which the former page first alerted his congressional sponsor’s office of Foley’s attentions. The copies of these e-mails, now available to the public, have the names of senders and recipients blotted out.

These revelations mean that Republicans who are calling for probes to discover what Democratic leaders and staff knew about Foley’s improper exchanges with under-age pages will likely be unable to show that the opposition party orchestrated the scandal now roiling the GOP just a month away from the midterm elections.

****

http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/100506/news2.html

it was a comment on going down lunatic fringe conspiracy theory paths (see mine...shoulda put a smiley face) when all you need to understand, and be reviled by, is that a Republican was a predator and Republican Leadership covered it up.

but dude, this House GOP aide might, and I stress might, because we didn't actually see him vote, be a registered Republican, but he was really a Democrat at heart. There's no other explanation for why he spilled the beans.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

That Liberal traitor Islamofascist appeaser!!! Stained Blue Dress!!!

;)

I barely know who Foley is nor do I know who is running against him in the elections.

I was out to breakfast with the wife and kids yesterday and I am guessing the guy at the table next to me was Foleys opponent. A Fox news crew was there filming him and his entourage eating breakfast and discussing their campaign yada yada... I was impressed everyone in the place was ignoring the film crew like they didn't care. I mean there were glances but no one was jumping up with John 3:16 signs or waving in the background.

After the filming was over the discussion went more towards Foley. (Yes I was evesdropping) Some jokes were made, lots of laughing. One gay joke was made and a joke about the guy at the table next to me stearing clear of 16 year old boys at all expense. They seemed really happy about Foley's situation almost jovial. I guess this means the guy at the table next to me is a shoe in for the position. I have no clue I thought the whole scene was bizzare.

between Foley and a former page, it reported about much more sexually explicit communications between Foley and a different former page over an “instant messaging” (IM) software program in 2003.

The first Web report of the relatively tame e-mails appears to have prompted someone to share the explicit IM messages. After ABC News obtained those messages, in which Foley discussed sexual acts with the second former page, a scandal mushroomed on Capitol Hill, and Foley resigned.

The source who provided the e-mails that ABC News first reported on its blog, denied sharing the more explicit IMs.

So while the primary source of the e-mails which kicked off the scandal was a House GOP aide, the trigger of the news coverage was the weblog.

The creator of stopsexpreditors.blogspot.com is unknown. An interview request e-mailed to the site was not returned

this was taken from the link provided by rodeo and hunter914. i'm still skeptical of the purported non involvelment by the dems

The issue is not who reported it, the issue is whether anyone sat on the information.

The overwhelming evidence indicates that House repub leadership are the only ones that sat on this info, while this pervert did his thing.

Don't cha think "overwhelming evidence" is a teensy weensy stretch at this point Rodeo?

Tech: WTF is up with all the "no outrage about Foley" comments. Do you actually read any of the threads or do you just paste in your liberal talking points oblivious to what is actually being said?

Ding Ding Ding

Actually, I don't.

When the three top Republican leaders are pointing fingers at each other over who allowed the Republican Deputy Whip to continue molesting children, that's pretty overwhelming to me.

Rodeo,

As a test of you moral outrage here. Do you think all the Democratic Congressmen that worked along-side and supported Studds(an admitted and unrepentant child molester) should also resign? Does the fact that they didn't ask him to resign not bother you? Didn't you yourself work at the Capitol when he was there? Did you call for his resignation? Did the Congressman you worked for? The House leader at the time? Anyone? They kept him in a position to keep molesting children for 14 more years!

Would you like a list of their names so you can call for their resignation?

I'm not discussing events of 24 years ago with you.

Go play elsewhere. You're part of the problem, not the solution.

LOL, that's what I thought. This is all politics for you.

Now they are fighting over whether the Speaker knew about Foley for two years, or only one year!

What a bunch of sleazeballs.

October 5, 2006
Early Warning on Foley Cited by Former Aide

By JEFF ZELENY and CARL HULSE
WASHINGTON, Oct. 4 — A former Congressional aide said Wednesday that Speaker J. Dennis Hastert’s office knew about reports of “inappropriate behavior” by Representative Mark Foley far earlier than Mr. Hastert’s office has acknowledged.

Mr. Hastert’s chief of staff, Scott Palmer, denied the account of the former aide, Kirk Fordham, who said in an interview that he had informed Mr. Palmer of the concerns about Mr. Foley before 2004. Mr. Hastert’s office had previously said it first learned of concerns about Mr. Foley in the fall of 2005.

Selective outrage is cute.

And lack of outrage for allowing for a child molester continued access to children is disgusting.

len, why does this have to be a "test of moral outrage" over historical misconduct in Congress? By a Dem. I still don't understand the angle. Is this moral equivalence, separate by the passage of time and by political party, somehow important to these sleazy events of today? What did you do to channel your outrage then?

I just don't see the point of this and would really like you to explain it all clearly for us slow learners.

no, the exact opposite. Bringing up events 24 years ago is patently political BS and a wussy tactic at best.

Why won't Republicans eat their own on this one? Why do you insist on providing aid and comfort to child predator Foley by injecting a 24 year old story into the cycle? It's just sleazy and disgusting.

Stop living in the past Hannity Jr.

len..

When did party trump the welfare of the public?

No matter the party, a wrongdoer should be outed and eliminated.

What is far stranger to me, is now the implied "gayness" of the individual and that he was "shielded" by gay staff members, all belonging to a party that wants to push the "sanctity of marriage" and eliminate gay unions. What the heck is this all about. Isn't this an internal contradiction in political philosophy?

It is interesting that even in "Marriage Encounter", they warn against "garbage dumping", stating that events from the past serve only to deepen rifts rather than resolve the current problem. To me, it is amazing that folks still try to justify current positions with arguments from long ago.