37 Comments

1. Skookumchuk:

Do you think he’d pass a basic physics test?

You have a monoculture of lawyers and that is what happens. Forget left and right for the moment. We have to break that, somehow.

Oct 2, 2006 - 8:45 am 2. stumbley:

I have long advocated a form of term limits that puts a cap on the amount of time one could spend in national politics at ANY level. If we limited the time a person could spend in government to, say, 12 years IN TOTAL (i.e., 4 years as a Representative, 4 years as a Senator, 4 years as a VP or Prez), perhaps we’d have a chance of weeding these creeps out earlier (or they’d have little time to work their wiles on innocents). It’s time that politics ceased being a career and went back to being public service again.

Additionally, as long as we continue to want the government to do everything for us, we run the risk of corruption and big money being involved. If we were limit the federal government to what it’s really *supposed* to do (print money, provide national defense, regulate interstate commerceóread the Constitution), and let local and state governments do the rest, we’d all be better off.

Oct 2, 2006 - 9:09 am 3. Skookumchuk:

stumbley:

It’s time that politics ceased being a career and went back to being public service again.

Well you know, as John Adams said:

“One useless man is a shame, two is a law firm, and three or more is a congress”.

There is no question in my mind that there is now sufficient public dissatisfaction with the whole business that a change is theoretically possible. Term limits may be part of the answer, but broadening the categories of people who run is at least as great a part of the solution. The question is how to do it.

Oct 2, 2006 - 9:37 am 4. Always right:

Roger, you are assuming the elected officials are the cream of the crop, of course.

The brightest and those with visions would hardly consider politics as a career of choice. And those decide to run for office, voters usually elect the blandest of them all (thanks to recent trend of negative campaigning).

So you hope these officials know to keep the brightest on their staff (not their donors, not their relatives out of work, not their buddies, etc.) to help with their deficiency. Fat chance, if we are lucky.

Oct 2, 2006 - 9:58 am 5. Roger:

“Roger, you are assuming the elected officials are the cream of the crop, of course.”

Reread my post. I assume the reverse. The question is – how to change this. Not easy under current circumstances, but, as SKookymchuk writes above, the conditions for such change are imporving.

Oct 2, 2006 - 10:04 am 6. stumbley:

“The question is how to do it.”

Another one of my fantasies is to have national elections (i.e., representatives and senators) decided by internet vote. Political campaigns would be conducted *solely* by a 6-month series of weekly televised debates; there would be no other form of campaigning allowed: no TV, no public appearances, etc. All candidates for office would be represented in the first debate. TV stations (all channels) would be required to televise the debates, such that there was *nothing* else for people to watch on any channel. Questions would be submitted by the public, screened by a bi-partisan committee or non-aligned group, and given to all the candidates. A vote would be held (via secure internet connection, using a voter ID established through rigorously-vetted security procedures) after each debate, and the candidates receiving pluralities would proceed to the next debate. The process would continue until there were only two candidates left at the end of the six month period. Since no primaries were involved, these remaining two candidates could even conceivably be from the same party.

By eliminating campaigning, advertising, and the huge expense involved, we take the corrupting influence of campaing finance out of the equation. The TV stations would contribute the air time as a public service (their licenses are granted for just such a reason), and we might just get people who are interested in statesmanship, instead of politics.

A real fantasy, no?

Oct 2, 2006 - 10:10 am 7. kparker:

Roger,

What, are you telling me that Hastert doesn’t know the Internet is a bunch of pipes???

And look who’s commenting now:

“There would be no other form of campaigning allowed…A real fantasy, no?”

Hey, John McCain, nice to see you here!

Oct 2, 2006 - 11:04 am 8. Terrye:

I am not defending Foley, but I do think there is something fishy about how this whole thing came about. Of course if the man had just behaved himself it would not be an issue.

As for Hastert, I don’t think he knew what he was dealing with. Maybe it is ignorance, or maybe he just did not want to see it.

Oct 2, 2006 - 11:05 am 9. stumbley:

“Hey, John McCain, nice to see you here!”

Candidates could still make public appearances and speak at churches, clubs, etc. and travel, if they wanted to…but advertising would be banned. Does that really impinge on free speech? Do you REALLY get anything out of today’s political advertising?

And what do you think candidates have to do to pay back all those donors who put up the millions for TV ads?

A candidate for senator today needs to raise an average of $10K PER DAY to fund a campaign. You can’t tell me that favors are not required to support that kind of cash.

As long as the playing field is level (i.e., NO ONE campaigns any other way), what’s the harm?

Oct 2, 2006 - 11:14 am 10. syn:

Foley’s actions have no defense and he did the right thing by resigning however, I do question the role of the Washington-based Soros funded group CREW and why ABC exposed emails when the parents of the 16 yr old wanted this ’scandal’to remain private.

That said, up until this Foley scandal I never knew that Congressman Studds(D) had a sexual relationship with a 17 yr old male page but was never repremanded by Democrats, turned his back on Congress for having involved violated his right to privacy and ended up being re-elected several additional terms.

However, I have always known older gay men (ie over 30 in that world) love their BoyToy sexual escapades so in this since Foley’s emails are perfectly normal repartee between older gay men and their BoyToys.

Oct 2, 2006 - 11:32 am 11. Steven Mitchell:

It’s very simple. Any sufficiently large group of people will include some nasty individuals. Republicans and Democrats are both much larger than the minimum needed for that.

When a Republican is this nasty, the leadership and the base demands that he resign, and he does. Heck, half the time the Republican resigns without any demands–probably because he knows the demands are coming. The party is rewarded for this by shrill denounciations from the opposition and the MSM in the hopes that you throw enough charges at someone, you’ll eventually make one stick.

In contrast, the typical nasty Democrat “fights” the charges while his party rallies around him and defends him against “partisan witch hunts”–on the basis that *anything* must be done to stop the immoral, evil opposition.

Jim Wright was the exception that proves the rule. (And him a conservative Democrat from a very red state.)

Given that perfection doesn’t exist, I’ll take the group that attempts some honor, however flawed in practice. I’ll insist that Republicans pay for real bad behavior (e.g Foley) and not for trumped up bad behavior. Meanwhile, opposition with a “group moral superiority complex” can stick their preening where the sun doesn’t shine. That Foley’s awful doesn’t stop Nancy Pelosi from being a rank hypocrite.

Oct 2, 2006 - 2:06 pm 12. ricpic:

“Do you think he’d pass a basic physics test?”

Intelligence is fungible. The issue is not whether our elected officials are up to speed on the latest scientific arcana; the issue is whether they possess the smarts to quickly get up to speed on a scientific/technical issue, when knowledge of that issue is needed in order to craft or vote on a piece of legislation pertinent to that issue.

I’d rather be represented by a bright (doesn’t have to be a genius) generalist, who is not in the grip of an ideology, than by the type who can talk all day about the diseases that are killing our forests but won’t allow the spraying of DDT because it’s against his eco-religion.

Oct 2, 2006 - 2:29 pm 13. jrdroll:

“He certainly wasn’t up to speed on the perils of email. Would you like a man like that dealing with issues of nuclear power.”
Apples and oranges No? Glenn Reynolds isn’t up to speed on the Linux kernal but he certainly is up to speed on nuclear power.

Oct 2, 2006 - 4:36 pm 14. Lem:

“So what? In the post-Monica era, that dog not only “will not hunt.” It won’t get off the floor to eat dinner.”

I’m not defending Foley, but let’s not mix apples and oranges. Bubba got impeach over lying under oath.

As I understand it, Foley’s problem is he didn’t get caught with the dead girl, it was a live boy. Btw – what does having a drink have to do with what Foley is being accused of? I’m getting sick and tired of people insinuating that alcohol is the root of all evil. I enjoy having drink once in a while and usually not much develops.

Oct 2, 2006 - 5:15 pm 15. Sally-O:

Not to quibble… okay, to quibble.

As creepy as I find Foley’s behavior, and as disinclined as I am to mourn his passing into political oblivion, isn’t it important to clarify exactly what he did wrong and separate the innuendo and obfuscation from the fact?

It’s inherently creepy for an older men or women to pursue much younger men or women, but had he pursued a woman in the same fashion, would the reaction be the same?

It seems that the boy at the center of this (the one who recieved IM messages) was 16, the age of consent in Washington DC, and not by law “a minor” or “juvenile” as has been widely reported. Was he employed by Foley’s office–is this sexual harrassment we’re talking about? Politically, Foley’s goose is cooked, and deservedly so, but I see nothing wrong with pointing out some of the hyperbole surrounding this case as it now stands.

Oct 2, 2006 - 6:05 pm 16. Terrye:

Sally-O

The boy who received the IM was college age and they are somewhat explicit. The 16 year old recieved an email that struck him as being too familiar, too chatty. But there was reportedly nothing sexual in it.

The email was what Hastert heard about and he alerted the Congressional Clerk and others as well and Foley was told not to contact the boy again. The boy’s parents did not want to pursue it.

I think part of the problem is that people are conflating the two. So far as I know no one is saying where the IMs came from, they are several years old.

Oct 2, 2006 - 6:41 pm 17. Roger:

“It’s inherently creepy for an older men or women to pursue much younger men or women, but had he pursued a woman in the same fashion, would the reaction be the same?”

Absolutely the same to this blogger. No difference whatsoever if this is a boy or a girl. The important thing, beside the age, is that he or she is a page – a very junior employee/intern of the US Congress. Bill Clinton got poleaxed for similar activity and deserved too. Enough of this, boy, girl or transgendered.

Oct 2, 2006 - 6:51 pm 18. Barrett:

When you get a group such as Congress (i.e. the Senate and House) and the staffers and all of the surrounding bureaucracy, you will get a normal distribution. That means roughly 64% of the population will be average. There will also be outliers on both ends. (It’s also why you have to appeal to the center to get elected.)

Therefore, it should come as no real surprise when you have folks like Foley (R) or the congressman from Louisiana (D)who had almost $100,000 in marked bills in his freezer. The fact that we have pedophiles and thieves as representatives points to the moral decline of our society as a whole where relativism seems to be the primary world view. You can make almost anything fit into it, especially with a small dose of situational ethics.

How we change this is another question. If we go with term limits alone, unelected staffers, who move from one representative to the next (because they know how to get things done), will end up running the place.

Stumbley suggests six months of weekly debates. While you and I may find this very helpful, I am not sure that the attention span of voters is that long. Political ads (and especially negative ads) are used because they impact voters who do not investigate the people, the claims made or the facts employed.

While I am not a Libertarian, I have a libertarian view of government. Government is the worst way to deliver most anything. The end result is poor quality and high cost. While there is a role for government, every effort should be made to find other ways to solve problems.

I wish I knew the magic formula. What I do know is that democracy is a lousy form of government until you evaluate the alternatives. I try to be informed. I am willing to discuss issues (and one reason why I visit here). I vote. As Thomas Jefferson said, “If a Nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be… if we are to guard against ignorance and remain free, it is the responsibility of every American to be informed.”

My hope is that everyone would realize how lucky we are to have been born here, to be a citizen and to have the opportunity to pursue our God given rights to enjoy life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. (Uh oh, now I am on my personal responsibility rant.) Maybe then we would have better candidates and results.

I’m sorry if I rambled.

Oct 2, 2006 - 7:17 pm 19. Lem:

Ok. Moving on, (not the organization) but in line w/ Terrie. Wasn’t there a big fuzz over the constitutionality of snatching suspected terror phone calls into the US? But there is no problem snatching instant massages and publishing them?

Again I’m not defending Foley – I’m asking how did these IM’s get into the hands of the newspapers? Is the MSM once again privileged to do things you or I would go to jail for?
There is a big scandal involving phone records and emails hitting the corporate world of Hewlett Packard. This is still somewaht unsettled law but like the song says.
There is something happening here but I don’t know what it is.

Oct 2, 2006 - 7:28 pm 20. timmah!:

“…the issue is whether they possess the smarts to quickly get up to speed on a scientific/technical issue…”

That’s unlikely to happen without at least a modest grounding in math and science. Science is a habit of thinking, not a set of facts.

Oct 2, 2006 - 7:45 pm 21. Sally-O:

Roger, IF it’s determined that the boy in question was of the legal age of consent (as seems to be the case, at least based on the reports we have), then doesn’t it next need to be determined that he really was, as you put it, “a page – a very junior employee/intern of the US Congress?”

I just feel like we need to have the facts here, which we’re very short on, and considering the political motivations of the gathering lynch mob, it’s going to be very hard to get a clear vantage point. I just don’t like lynch mobs, even if their object has essentially hung himself.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I understood him to be a former page, hence a former employee (a scenario which may not even rise to the level of sexual harrassment).

I don’t think it’s tantamount to defending Foley to ask these questions. There’s no resurrecting his political career (nor should there be), but when it comes to defending others who are likely to find themselves in the crossfire now, having all the facts–instead of just the media spin–seems worth the trouble.

Oct 2, 2006 - 7:54 pm 22. Lem:

There may be a silver lining. If we can get the democrats to overreach (asking for Haster to resign) they will be off-massage. Iraq, Woodward and who meet with whom five years ago will still be there, but unable to compete with sex. There is blood in the water. Will they go for the apparent feast?

Oct 2, 2006 - 8:18 pm 23. patrick neid:

lost in the shuffle……

everybody, and i mean, everybody in DC knew foley was gay and very friendly with the pagesñfriendly meaning he always said hello, doted on them, asked their names and generally, probably acted like a congressional ìqueenî. in fact his goodbye speeches at the podium on the floor brought him to tears and the pages to laughter. what he never did, as far as anyone knew or knows to date, is actually touch or molest anyone. there is no knowledge of him actually having sex as some others have in the past. knowing that as background, five years ago was hastert supposed to start a witch hunt into foleyís background because he was gayñ–based on ìyou know, all gays are predatory pedofiles or statutory rapistsî. give me a break. today the IMís change everything. however they donít indicate pedofiliañthey do indicate trolling for pages aged 16-18. no matter how despicable it may be it may not even be illegal. either way foley has been shamed out of congress by republicans. studds got re-elected five more times. thereís the difference.

the only thing iím certain of is that the dems could care less about the pagesñthatís why one of their operatives hid/held the IMís until now to try to get a house seat. i can only hope that the FBI agents on this case are bi-partisan so that the truth comes out about this horrible affair.

Oct 2, 2006 - 9:58 pm 24. Bill Quick:

Bill Clinton got poleaxed for similar activity and deserved too.

Not by me, and not by principled conservatives and libertarians, who loathed Clinton for his lies – to grand juries, judges, and directly, with wagging finger, to the American people. I didn’t give a damn who he was screwing, or who was blowing him – but lying politicians destroy the transparency that keeps democracy healthy, do immeasurable damage to the justice system (in Clinton’s case) and for that I wanted him impeached, convicted, and jailed, if possible.

Sorry to hear you thought he should be “poleaxed” over a blowjob.

Oct 2, 2006 - 10:54 pm 25. jedrury:

Abramoff, Ney, Cunningham, DeLay and then the lone Democrat, Jefferson. Hardly, a list of saints. Regardless, the House has been ill served by its members. The Bush Administration had ruled DC rather easily with GOP control of both houses. If the House goes Democratic, let’s see exactly how good the White House is at adversarial governance where the investigatory subpoenas come daily, its bills are left on the shelf and the funding for the WOT is tied up in committee. Clinton did well beating the House in the media when the House went Republican in 1994. Of course, Newt was a rather large and easy target.

There is a need for creative governance. Let’s see how the Democrats rule the House under the autocratic rules put in place by Hastert and DeLay. This possibility is going to be interesting.

Oct 2, 2006 - 11:37 pm 26. kparker:

“Does that really impinge on free speech? ”

Absolutely yes.

Oct 3, 2006 - 1:46 am 27. Knucklehead:

Sally-O (as well as Lem and Terrye) are hitting on the themes that seem important to me.

- what, exactly, did Foley do? I’m not the least bit interested in devoting time to investigating this but it seems as if he had some questionable email contacts with at least one page. Not a good idea but the info available thus far suggests there was nothing “actionable” in this. The family contacted their rep who contacted the proper authorities who looked into it about as far as any other organization would have looked into it. Apparently they whispered in Foley’s ear that his emails to this youngster (this was, I believe, the 16 year old) made the parents uncomfortable, but not uncomfortable enough to make any claim of sexual predator or turn over evidence or demand an investigation or prosecution. They just wanted it to stop and Foley was apparently told to cease and desist. No management of any significant organization would have been able to do much more than that.

- Foley was “friendly” with pages. He kept contact with them and treated them well. Eventually he…

- got way too “friendly” with another male page that led to IMs that were allegedly sexually suggestive. Perhaps even “predatory”. This page seems to have been above the “age of consent” but not yet a “legal” adult.

There does not seem to be any claim that Foley engaged in any sort of sex acts with pages.

I am not “defending” Foley. He is old enough to have known better. Nor am I claiming that his behavior should be excused because “the other side did it”. He doesn’t seem to be accused of what the “other side” (or any of the names mentioned in this and other posts and threads). Is there any claim that Foley engaged in sex with a page or pages? Is there any claim that he did anything other than say improper things?

This strikes me as pretty milquetoast improper behavior. The guy, at least from the “evidence” so far, seems to have been mostly a fairly passive lecher/pervert (pick whichever you prefer). The world is crawling with those. He behaved badly enough to cross from passivity to verbalizing. Is there some evidence he crossed over into acting upon his proclivities?

I’m glad the guy resigned but I’m missing what the big crime is here.

Oct 3, 2006 - 6:36 am 28. Roger:

Bill Quick,

In general, I’m no puritan or bluenose and I don’t think people should get “poleaxed” over blowjobs, but I do think the President of the United States getting a (several) blowjob from a junior employee in the corridors of the Oval Office is a little bit off the charts.

I guess that makes me not-a-libertarian. But, as I’ve said a hundred time, I’m not an anything these days (except late for lunch, etc.)

And, er, Knucklehead. There’s a lot more here than a couple of randy emails. I don’t think you’ve done your research … not that I blame you. Check the IMs.

Oct 3, 2006 - 7:58 am 29. jedrury:

Knucklehead:

You are right to ask what happened here. A gay Congressman plays internet sex games with a 16 year old page. Maybe or maybe not, a crime. At a minimium, a huge “media crime” which cuts into the base of the GOP. This may sound the death knell for the GOP in the House. The media loves it, it is all over the TV, the press is calling for the ouster of the Speaker and the whole affair fits with the monthly carnival of scandal laid at the feet of the GOP.

A media crime does not fit the definition of a common law crime, it a crime that the likes of Nancy Grace and Keith Olbermann find offensive.

Poor Dennie Hastert. What can you possibly do when the Mark Foley dog manure is laid on the rug of your office a few weeks ago. If you call the Floridian in and chastise him, you are gay bashing. If you call Sister Mary in to monitor his telephone calls and IMs, you engage in an impossible task. You can’t force the congressman to resign, or, you incur the wrath of the likes of Andrew Sullivan. You can’t leak it as you need the seat, nor can you call for an ethics investigation, because then the Dems will leak it.

“Woe is me,” cries Dennie.

Oct 3, 2006 - 8:21 am 30. Vulgorilla:

“Another one of my fantasies is to have national elections (i.e., representatives and senators) decided by internet vote. – stumbley”

One of my fantasies is to have elections on April 16th, the day after we write the check to Uncle Sam for our yearly tax bill, unlike they are now, which is to be about as far away from April 15th as the calendar will allow. This, I suspect, would result in the make-up of Congress being totally different than what it is today.

Oct 3, 2006 - 8:21 am 31. Luther McLeod:

I suspect, due to his quick resignation, that Foley felt something that Bill C. apparently never has…shame for his actions, or at least I would hope so. How Bill C. can stick his head out of his house without undergoing tremendous personal embarrassment is a mystery too me. That he is still taken seriously by a good part of this country befuddles me as well. I see no prudery in holding someone responsible for their irresponsible actions.

Oct 3, 2006 - 8:27 am 32. Knucklehead:

Roger,

I have to start with the disclaimer that I am not defending Foley and do not, in any way, condone what he’s done. I would not want, and would take action to stop, someone from having those sorts of instant messaging exchanges with my daughters (more on that momentarily).

I’ve put all the time I intend to put into my very cursory effort to “read the IM’s”. What little I’ve seen puts them in the category of idiotic phone sex 900 numbers. With the exceptions, of course, that the exchanges happened with a young person. It is entirely possible that the full contents of IMs, when conducted with a person of that age, may constitute a crime. Regardless of the potential criminality it was, to my standards at least, sick. I’ll leave the criminality to law-enforcement to determine.

There seem to be two basic charges against Foley. One is, essentially, pedophilia. Well… this is sleazy, skeevey, sick, perverted… any number of words apply but is there evidence of actual pedophilia? Does the “teen” who was the other half of this IM exchange qualify, to whatever degree necessary, to establish the “ped” in pedophilia? Next, does sick sex talk, gay or otherwise, qualify? I don’t know the answers to those things but I suspect they’d be down toward the rather tepid range of “pedophilia”.

Talking dirty to the kiddies is bad but it ain’t touching. There’s a fundamental line here that most of us (well, me anyway) would rigorously stay far to the proper side of (heck, the vast majority of us wouldn’t consider getting anywhere near such a line). The OTHER side of that line is far worse. Did Foley go there?

The other charge seems is the nearly always ridiculous charge of “hypocrasy”. Well, hell’s bells, Margo, the quickest way to clear out politicians (and most of the rest of us for that matter) would be criminalizing hypocrasy. I fail to see how it is any more or less “hypocritical” to excuse a POTUS for getting BJ’s and playing hide the ceegar with a 21 yr. old intern than it is to fail to take action against a congressman who engaged in sick sex talk. I don’t give a rat’s patoot about the “hypocracy” catfight. It’s all hyperventilated claptrap anymore as far as I’m concerned.

Let’s return to the matter of the IMs. If you have teenage offspring and you’ve paid any attention there’s a good chance you’ve noticed that they IM like there’s no freakin’ tomorrow. And the chances are reasonably good (especially if they are female) that they’ve been subjected to some unwanted and suggestive messages that at least skirt where Foley went – probes to see if they will engage in that sort of banter and, presumably in at least some cases, further.

I haven’t done so myself (honest injun!) but I am told (by other parents and my daughters) that if one pokes around on places like MySpace and FaceBook one will find some remarkably “randy” sorts of e-behavior by the yutes – even ones much younger than congressional pages. (I’ve actually spoken with other parents who have been left sobbing by what they’ve seen on their teens sites.)

None of that makes any of this “right” or excusable in any way. It does, however, point out the unfortunate fact that many of our teens are not particularly innocent when it comes to this sort of thing. They know all about it and they generally even know how to rebuff or prevent further exchanges with sickos. I witnessed it with my own daughters while they were engaged in group IM chats with buddies. The minute some sicko encroaches they alarm goes out and in a few short seconds they’ve got the sicko blocked and reported. Quite amazing, actually. They had the problem recognized and resolved faster than I might have recognized it in the first place. And then I would have spent an hour or more trying to figure out how to block and report the sicko.

Our yutes are familiar with this sort of thing and sometimes engage in it. None of that excuses a mature man like Foley. He got tossed out on his ear and he served that. If anything he did qualifies as a sex crime then he deserves prosecution. He should have kept his sticky fingers off the danged keyboard but if he kept them off the teen then he didn’t engage in anything that isn’t an astonishingly common in today’s world and, therefore, hardly worth the level of shrieking this incident is provoking. The level of shrieking about this strikes me as political theater and luring eyes and ears to the tubes.

And none of that touches on what seem to be some developing claims that that there’s some “opposition research” games here that have been taken to a level that may be no less “sick” than what Foley has done. Foley reeks, no doubt about it. There are some other nasty odors wafting through the air on this one.

Oct 3, 2006 - 9:34 am 33. stumbley:

“There are some other nasty odors wafting through the air on this one.”

Of this, there is absolutely no doubt. It’s one of those stories that, if you were to delve deeper, *everyone* would come out looking sleazier. I submit that it will probably “go away” rather quickly, as not many in the hallowed halls of Congress could stand the scrutiny.

Oct 3, 2006 - 10:48 am 34. Knucklehead:

Stumbley,

It will disappear immediately after the election for precisely that reason. I “question the timing” (somebody has that trademarked but I don’t care). The “release” of this story was timed to allow for maximized screaming but not enough, pre-election, for sensible settle-down or reprisals (dirty tricks by the Republicans).

Unless, of course, this was the “October Suprise” Rove is alleged to have promised. If he knew this was coming and had a counter-attack prepared we’ll see that over the next couple weeks.

It would be a fair guess that there are a few other members of congress squirming at the moment thinking their constituents might not see a huge difference between sleazy, gay sex-talk IMs with a 17 yr. old page and gay, or non-gay, sleazy sex-talk with 17 or 18 or 19 year old pages or interns or baby-sitters or whomever. Congress has more than its fair share of sleazey idiots and sleazey idiots are prone to this sort of thing.

Oct 3, 2006 - 11:02 am 35. Bill Quick:

Roger, you miss my point. For years I had to listen to crap from Clinton apologists who claimed the conservative case against him was based merely on his sexual activities.

Those of us who regarded his lying – both to the public and to the judicial system – as extremely dangerous to democracy itself (not to mention criminal) – spent years trying to make that point in reply.

And now you come along and confirm the worst charges of the Clintonites – apparently for you, it was all about sex.

Well, sorry. That wasn’t it for me, and it has nothing to do with my libertarianism. It has a lot to do with my respect for honesty and transparency in healthy democratic systems.

Oct 3, 2006 - 11:09 am 36. Luther McLeod:

Though perhaps not written well, my only point above, really:

No one will take responsibility for their actions

Cowards all. IOW’s, no shame.

Oct 3, 2006 - 8:37 pm 37. tioedong:

Ah, I’m old enough to remember when we gals put up with flirting and roving hands all the time..
There was even a name for that type of guy…a dirty old man.
Every nurse and female medical student was warned not to get alone with certain docs…
The way the story is playing on the internet, you’d think he was raping pages in the restroom…hmmm I wonder if he was…
As for pages, I suspect if someone sat with some pages, they could tell you which congressmen and which congressmens’ aides “hit” on them all the time, because usually that type of word gets around.

Oct 4, 2006 - 4:30 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: