Hume Compares Mark Foley To President Clinton
Hume Compares Mark Foley To President Clinton
This morning on Fox News Sunday, Brit Hume compared Mark Foley’s predatory behavior towards underage pages to President Clinton’s relationship with Monica Lewinsky. Hume said that while Foley is now “in total disgrace in his party,” Clinton’s “inappropriate behavior toward a subordinate [didn’t] even cost Bill Clinton his standing in his party.” Watch it:
There is zero comparison between Foley’s behavior and Clinton’s. Foley made unwanted advances towards underage boys which one page described as “sick” and reported to authorities. The leadership of Foley’s party covered up his behavior for months.
President Clinton had a consensual relationship with an adult. The fact that it was an extramarital affair was virtually unanimously condemned by members of both parties.
Full transcript:
HUME: It is very serious misbehavior on the part of Congressman Foley, whether it stems from arrogance or just weakness of the human flesh is another question. It’s probably worth noting that there’s a difference between the two parties on these issues. Inappropriate behavior towards subordinates didn’t cost Gerry Studds his Democratic seat in Massachussetts, nor Barney Frank his. Nor did inappropriate behavior toward a subordinate even cost Bill Clinton his standing within the Democratic Party, even though indirectly he was impeached for it. Mark Foley found out about this, was found out to have done this, and he’s out of office and in total disgrace in his party.
WILLIAMS: It took him long enough, don’t you think?
HUME: What do you mean?
WILLIAMS: Well, gee, they knew about it way back. No action was taken. That’s the question.
HUME: What we don’t know —
LIASON: Barney Frank was not with a subordinate. We should correct that. We should correct that.
WALLACE: Yeah, I think we should point that out. I don’t think Barney Frank was involved with a page.
WILLIAMS: Yeah.
HUME: It is worth noting that we don’t yet know exactly what they knew and when they knew it. This — obviously, we’ll find out this week.
WILLIAMS: Well, it’s an argument among Republicans who have a very different time record here for what Hastert is saying.
WALLACE: Alright, guys. You can take it outside afterwards.
Brit Hume, who cares what he says?
:::
October 1st, 2006 at 12:04 pmUh wasn’t this a 16 y/o I think that is very different than a 21 y/o.
October 1st, 2006 at 12:07 pmThis makes me sick. I’m so tired of Fox and their propaganda. It’s a shame that they stoop to such rediculous lies and slander.
The worst part of this is that there will be many Fox viewers who will just agree with this drivel, without thinking it through for themselves.
There is absolutely NO COMPARISON!
October 1st, 2006 at 12:09 pmHume is a relentless ass.
October 1st, 2006 at 12:09 pmFoley was born that way. He’s simply being who he is. Who are you intolerant bigots to judge a man’s homosexual proclivities?
October 1st, 2006 at 12:10 pmAre these people so stupid to make a comparison between sex between adults and sexually advances between a male adult and a minor. These quys are sick. This is a legal issue, its against the law and it falls in the same catagory as priest doing minors, teachers doing minors, and any adult doing minors with sexual intent. They all get investigated, arrested and put on trial.
Comment by DougdBiker October 1, 2006
October 1st, 2006 at 12:16 pmHume, what a cadaverous mook. Does anyone believe that hapless nitwit?
-GSD
October 1st, 2006 at 12:16 pmwhat is the legal age in DC? If its 16 that will be the next talking point. That it was “consensual”
Hume is a total dissembler anyway you slice it.
October 1st, 2006 at 12:16 pm#5, it isn’t his “homosexual proclivities” we’re concerned with, it’s the fact that he was pusuing an underage page. If Foley were making the same advances to a 16 year old FEMALE page, the criticism would be the same (it would, however, not be as ironic).
October 1st, 2006 at 12:16 pmThat is so retarded Hume… there are several prominent republicans who were married but had affairs with another ADULT and they are still in good standing with the republican arty so don’t even try that you hypocritical shill.
October 1st, 2006 at 12:19 pmWhat the hell would they do without Clinton? It is strange that every action the rethuglicans take is justified and compared in some way to Bill Clinton. It is ironic that President Clinton has become the standard for bushco.
October 1st, 2006 at 12:22 pmHey #5, no one is judging Foley’s “homosexual proclivities”. We’re judging his pedophile proclivities. If I were judging him as a homosexual I’d have to “drag” in GWB (switch), Shooter (top), Mehlman (bottom), and a host other GOP “faithful”.
I’ve never seen a bigger bunch of Gays who spew gay hatred. But here the concern is Foley being a pedophile. Foley joins an ever increasing number of GOPers who have been caught just this year trying to find children online to satisfy their sexual needs.
Perhaps, #5, you suffer from an attention deficit problem. You know they have medication for that now.
Good luck to you, and if you get tired of supporting pedophiles, you might consider changing parties.
October 1st, 2006 at 12:23 pm298 million Americans DO Not watch Fox “news”.
October 1st, 2006 at 12:23 pmClinton’s smack down of Chris Wallace has really gotten under Brit Hume’s skin. Hume is lashing out at Clinton because Clinton did something he wasn’t supposed to do - he pointed out that Fox is a sockpuppet for the republican spin machine.
October 1st, 2006 at 12:23 pm#5 Go troll somewhere else. Homosexuality is not the same thing as pedophilia.
You hypocrites are so disgusting. You’re willing to make the most outrageous charges because you’re so blindly sure that your side is right and good, in spite of all glaringly obvious evidence to the contrary.
Truly pathetic.
October 1st, 2006 at 12:26 pmDon’t forget, Republicans “take care” of their problems. Bob Ney, anyone?
October 1st, 2006 at 12:28 pmRepublicans coddle AND protect pedophiles. A perfect example of GOP “moral values”. Not only protect child molesters, but cover-up.
October 1st, 2006 at 12:30 pmBrit Hume just showed himself not only to be totally stupid but misinformed as well. Pedophilia is very, very different than consensual sex, for starters!
Does the GOP have absolutely no shame? No conscience? We should boycott any media programming that is so obviously “twisted & demented” that they have to try to analogize two disparate incidents and try to tie them together! What hubris! What a joke Brit Hume is!
This is, indeed, Rove’s “october surprise”….and surprise, surprise, the mainstream media is “on the GOP take” and could care less about our children….that’s crystal clear!
October 1st, 2006 at 12:32 pmScrew Hume and the bloated elephant he rode in on….I never watch their crap any way…….Soon enough it will become evident to the public that this administration is made up of a bunch of sickos….Consenting adults is not the same as molesting children…..Being gay is not a crime….Soliciting children like incest is the worst of crimes…..Arrest, jail and then put them in with the general population in the big house, see how well they do there……Blessings
October 1st, 2006 at 12:35 pmTypical GOP tactics - blame Clinton.
October 1st, 2006 at 12:37 pmWith the comments of Fox news we know why our country is run by sickos.
October 1st, 2006 at 12:44 pmA child/children have been attacked by a sex offender who happen to be a US Congressman and his fellow elected officials cover it up as he will continue his attacks. Bill Clinton had an affair with an adult woman what’s wrong with this picture. Now Hume thinks a child sex offender is as bad as a man having an affair. Well Bush is having an affair with Connie Rice what’s with that. Is Gonzales still looking for child sex offenders if so check the White House and Branches of government first then go to Homeland Security.
Foley’s actions are not the same as Clinton’s, they’re the same as some Roman Catholic Priests…”good Christians” all around.
Of course, we don’t know at this stage whether or not Foley actually had sex with underage boys. For that, we’d need a complete impartial investigation. Think that’s likely to happen?
October 1st, 2006 at 12:48 pmAttraction to a 16 year old young man is homosexuality, not pedophilia. That is a fact.
October 1st, 2006 at 12:49 pmHume could do better. Bush likes to use a World War II analogy, seeing himself as Winston Churchill promising blood, sweat, tears and tax cuts. In that (approved) analogy, Foley is Ernst Rohm, martyred leader of the young and ever so homoerotic SA (storm troopers). Of course, Rohm is sacrificed in favor of the Gestapo. Can’t wait for the next installment. Don’t you love public theater?
October 1st, 2006 at 12:49 pmHere’s a question for Hume. If you had two sixteen-year-old boys, would you be comfortable inviting Bill Clinton into your home for an evening? Would you be equally comfortable inviting Mark Foley into your home for an evening?
That’s the difference.
October 1st, 2006 at 12:54 pmIs Bret Hume making a tacit case for N.A.M.B.L.A. Does he not understand the difference in morality between age with regards to this issue? Monica was pursuing Bill, whereas old Foley was pursuing his Boy Robin. Does being constitute enticement in Bret’s eyes? Should we not be looking into Bret’s private life, now? If the press receives special consideration under the constitution, should not its practitioners have the moral compass needed to discern predatory behavior from an adult towards a child?
October 1st, 2006 at 12:55 pmDems should stick to two main themes:
1) Yet another Republican HYPOCRITE has been exposed.
2) Politely but forcefully ask whether there was a cover-up.
Stay on the offensive.
October 1st, 2006 at 12:56 pmIsn’t everything Clinton’s fault?
October 1st, 2006 at 12:56 pmGang of
Ooversexed
PPedophiles
It is as simple as that
October 1st, 2006 at 12:57 pmClinton was an adulterer.
October 1st, 2006 at 12:58 pmFoley is a predator.
CREW knew too. Heh.
October 1st, 2006 at 12:59 pmI was over at Talkleft this morning and a poster named James Robertson had left a comment about Gerry Studds and Barney Frank. It had been posted around midnight way before Hume made his remarks. I wonder if this James Robertson and Hume are getting their talking points from the same person?.
October 1st, 2006 at 1:02 pmLooks like ThinkProgress is deleting comments they disagree with. How tolerant and open-minded.
October 1st, 2006 at 1:06 pmRegardless, Denial Hastert will be shown to have covered this up. You gotta love the timing of this. Grab another seat in Congress, watch out you Gory Old Pedophiles!
October 1st, 2006 at 1:11 pmIt is no wonder Hume’s son, Sandy Hume, was a alcoholic and ate a bullet at 28.
October 1st, 2006 at 1:11 pmYou guys don’t get it. To republicans, the Lewinsky business really IS the same as the Foley business. Because to republicans, women are the same as children.
It’s the same thing to them. They draw that equivalence not because of expediency, but rather because of their fundamental sexist nature.
October 1st, 2006 at 1:12 pm#7 The biggist hypocrite leads the party so what should we expect from the rest?????
October 1st, 2006 at 1:13 pmIt is no wonder that Hume’s son, Sandy Hume, was an alcoholic and ate a bullet at 28yrs old.
October 1st, 2006 at 1:13 pmMarie,
Both are predators.
October 1st, 2006 at 1:13 pmAttraction to a 16 year old young man is homosexuality, not pedophilia. That is a fact.
Comment by Yes+I+Question+Your+Patriotism
Sounds like the voice of experience….
October 1st, 2006 at 1:14 pmcdj
a 16 year old is not a child.
October 1st, 2006 at 1:15 pmIt is no wonder that Hume’s son, Sandy Hume, was an alcoholic and ate a bullet at 28yrs old.
Comment by David
That was out of line the first time you put it up.
October 1st, 2006 at 1:16 pmNice to see Democrats opposing homosexuality though.
October 1st, 2006 at 1:17 pmOne gets the feeling that if a Republican filleted a newborn live on TV, the GOP would still be defending him, and still be comparing it to Clinton.
The American people, in their infinite wisdom, will see the GOP for what it is, the type of policies it propogates, and the type of people it tries to protect.
October 1st, 2006 at 1:18 pmBritt Hume needs to stay focused in the present. President Clinton is the past, and we are talking about a young woman who knew exactly what she was doing. She is doing quite well, and the attention has not hurt her or her career and she was no virgin at the time.
Britt Hume needs to be concerned about Mark Foley, a latent homosexual, predator, and of boys!! O my God, this flies in the face what Republicans stand for, eh?? Children? Monica Lewinsky was young but no child. And Reynolds knew? But the parents didn’t want to press the matter? How about the other potential young victims out there? Eh? What if it was your kid, do you have kids?
Hey Britt, focus on the here and now and don’t confuse the issues for the seemingly ignorant people you think are out here. Stop justifying and start putting the blame and actions where they lie, at the doorstep of a mature, intelligent but sick man, he of the high and mighty Republican party.
And by the way, what war did you serve in? I watch your show, sometimes I agree or disagree, but the tongue lashing President Clinton gave Chris last week was well deserved. Are you all that stupid to bait one of the most intelligent and brilliant politicians alive today??
This guy is smarter than you and he made Chris look like an ass!! Now you are starting to do the same thing. I would love to see you “try” to take on Mr. Clinton one on one. But, methinks you’re too chicken and not smart enough. You are a reader of the news, President Clinton is a maker of news. Without people like him, you would not have a job.
You have no guts and have forgotten to get to the heart of the story, even as a sometimes Republican, I would vote for Clinton again in a heartbeat and I am a woman. He made the show come alive, his lines were not rehearsed and he wasn’t reading anything, he was passionate and brilliant and exciting. If all you can do is try to still go after him after last week and not focus on the Foley matter, you are not a hardhitting reporter, you have settled behind your cushy desk and read the news. In the real world, you’d be floundering around like Tony Snow still is doing no matter what the press people say, “he sucks” is what I say and he is about as manly as my toe. God what a disappointment!!! I tend to think you would do just as badly, Oh, and please tell Moira that whoever dyes her hair does a baaaaaaaaaaad
job of it, I can usually see her gray roots, and going lighter would make
her look younger. She is a beautiful woman, and you need to lose some weight. You are getting a bit fat!!
Oh and #23, a 16 yr old is not of legal age in this country, to vote or go to war, so he is still a minor and it is pedophilia not homosexuality, especially from a mature adult Congressman; if these two people were of the same age then homosexuality it is, and I for one have friends and family who are homosexuals not pedofiles. There is a big difference you dolt!
Linda Reeves
October 1st, 2006 at 1:19 pmClassy David. Typical lib “compassion.”
October 1st, 2006 at 1:20 pm#5 retorted on #23, You clearly wouldn’t know a fact if it hit you in the face.
Attraction of a 53 year old man to a 16 year old child of any sex is pedophilia.
The fact that Foley was a pathetic closet case for decades is irrelevant.
October 1st, 2006 at 1:21 pmNo one is opposing homosexuality Say+No+to+Censorship.
There are plenty of straight pedophiles out there to pal.
Are you opposing heterosexuality?
The Republicans use Gay like the Germans used the war-time Jews… scapegoats.
October 1st, 2006 at 1:22 pmnick,
Republicans aren’t defending Foley; Foley resigned. Republicans don’t defend wrongdoing the way Democrats always do, which was Hume’s point. So far no one here has even begun to rebut Hume’s point.
October 1st, 2006 at 1:22 pmI meant pedophiles!! And Foley is not a latent homo he is a pedophile, and I am correcting my own mistakes because I was typing so fast.
I just couldn’t believe Britt Hume’s comparison today re: Pres. Clinton and Mark Foley. Nuts!!
Linda Reeves
October 1st, 2006 at 1:23 pmOf course, we don’t know at this stage whether or not Foley actually had sex with underage boys.
Comment by Briseadh na Faire — October 1, 2006 @ 12:48 pm
If he hasn’t, his text messages certainly indicate that given enough time, he probably would have. Now, while that is not grounds for indicting him, it certainly is grounds for removing him from a task force charged with protecting underaged children. I’m glad he quit. Save tax payers’ some dollars… though I’m sure they are already in transit to the holocaust in Iraq.
October 1st, 2006 at 1:23 pm#41 said, “a 16 year old is not a child.”
WHAT!?!?!?
Actually, it’s attitudes just like that that promote pedophilia! Society must firmly recognize and support our legal protections and definitions of minors in our society as well as the responsibilities of adults and adulthood.
For shame.
October 1st, 2006 at 1:25 pmglamberson,
No, pedophilia is attraction to prepubescent children. You are an ignoramus, like David. Foley is a sick man, but he is not a pedophile, he is a homosexual.
October 1st, 2006 at 1:25 pmHey that’s the facts Say+No+to+Censorship.
Hume is an shitbag and his son ate a slug.
October 1st, 2006 at 1:25 pmI’d compare Brit Hume to a newsman, but there is no comparison.
October 1st, 2006 at 1:26 pmAttraction to a 16 year old young man is homosexuality, not pedophilia. That is a fact.
Comment by Yes+I+Question+Your+Patriotism — October 1, 2006 @ 12:49 pm
I teach high school. The age of consent is 18, not 16. After being around them all day, I can tell you why. There is a vast difference between the maturity level of most 16 year old boys and 18 year old men.
16 year old boys like to fart in class and think it’s funny. The 18 year olds in the room do not do this.
16 year old boys still whine and pout when they don’t get their way. None of the 18 year olds in my class do this.
16 year old boys are children. They are not men, young or otherwise. Not by a long shot.
October 1st, 2006 at 1:28 pm“Society must firmly recognize and support our legal protections and definitions of minors in our society as well as the responsibilities of adults and adulthood.”
So then you think the Democrats’ support for abortion on demand for underage girls is wrong, correct?
October 1st, 2006 at 1:28 pmHume is an shitbag and his son ate a slug.
Comment by David
David, please stop with that.
October 1st, 2006 at 1:28 pm#49
“Republicans aren’t defending Foley”
We will find that out soon enough pal.
And when you find out that they have been hiding his pedo info, you will defend that too.
October 1st, 2006 at 1:28 pm#53 said, “pedophilia is attraction to prepubescent children.”
Maybe in your little world, but not in reality. That is not a dictionary definition of pedophilia. It’s certainly not any legal definition in this country!
You really need to get a grip. As I already pointed out, it’s people like you who are so willing to blur the lines between what is and isn’t ok is what endangers children.
You need to take a good look at your attitudes. OR have you already and is your opinion on this matter framed by the fact that you are a pedophile?
October 1st, 2006 at 1:31 pmOh yea, Foley resigned so fast, cuz he knew what was coming, and honey, its coming anyway…and #36 women are the same as children?
I can’t even comment on that one…..if your mom was a child you would never have survived infancy, maybe you shouldn’t have…LOL
Clinton is still sexy, hot and I know too many women, Democrats as well as Republicans who would not have minded being in that oval office w/him. And since Republicans are so faithful to their wives, why don’t we add a clause when they swear in for their offices, on the Bible that says they have NEVER committed adultery.. I think over 80 percent of our congressmen would have to resign, eh?? Dems and Reps.
October 1st, 2006 at 1:31 pmwhy dont all you people send these comemnts to Fox news where they will actually do some good? good stuff but lost on these readers, fill up Humes mailbox pronto!
October 1st, 2006 at 1:31 pmThe Republican and Fox news strategy to defusing the uproar of Foley’s pedophilic actions clearly is to try to distract people from the facts of the case by blaming Clinton, as usual, as if Clinton’s past affairs with adult women is just as bad as Foley attempting to lure underage teenage boys.
October 1st, 2006 at 1:31 pmNo, pedophilia is attraction to prepubescent children. You are an ignoramus, like David. Foley is a sick man, but he is not a pedophile, he is a homosexual.
Comment by Say+No+to+Censorship — October 1, 2006 @ 1:25 pm
We know you neocons are governed by emotion, but the law will arrest you and charge you with a crime if you are 18 or older and you have sex with another, of either gender, person under 18. Sounds like pedophilia to me.
Or, are you a 16 year old boy who’s ego is bruised because he’s being called a child (and you are).
October 1st, 2006 at 1:32 pmWe all have been rebutting Hume’s point. You’re not getting it.
The point is that he was involving himself with a 16-year-old. Under the age of consent. Clinton was doing the same with someone who was over the age of consent. It doesn’t mean he wasn’t being sleazy - he was. But there’s still a difference in the ages here.
Get it now?
October 1st, 2006 at 1:34 pmunbelievable,
“The age of consent is 18, not 16.”
Legal age of consent and the definition of pedophilia are two different questions.
“There is a vast difference between the maturity level of most 16 year old boys and 18 year old men.”
Utter nonsense.
October 1st, 2006 at 1:34 pm#57
Yes. So?
See how that works? The Democratic Party isn’t the Borg.
October 1st, 2006 at 1:35 pm“So then you think the Democrats’ support for abortion on demand for underage girls is wrong, correct?”
Please try to stay on topic. We’re talking about pedophiles.
October 1st, 2006 at 1:36 pmFox News, “Should the age of consent be lowered?”
October 1st, 2006 at 1:36 pm“the law will arrest you and charge you with a crime if you are 18 or older and you have sex with another, of either gender, person under 18. Sounds like pedophilia to me.”
An 18 year old having sex with a 17 year old would not be arrested, and calling that pedophilia is idiotic.
October 1st, 2006 at 1:37 pm#58
Zooey, my apologies if I offended you, that was probably over the top.
David
October 1st, 2006 at 1:37 pmSay+No+to+Censorship,
What don’t you understand about the words “under age?”
Do you have kids? A daughter?
I guess you’d be thrilled to see her getting horny emails from, or in a relationship with, a congressman at age 16.
October 1st, 2006 at 1:39 pmLegal age of consent and the definition of pedophilia are two different questions.
No they aren’t.
http://www.avert.org/ageconsent.htm
Utter nonsense.
Comment by Say+No+to+Censorship — October 1, 2006 @ 1:34 pm
No it isn’t. Clearly you’re 16 and think you know it all, but you are simply a child. When you grow up and look back, you’ll understand.
October 1st, 2006 at 1:39 pmFact: The age of consent in Washington DC is 16 years old.
October 1st, 2006 at 1:39 pmDon’t feed the troll. The troll doesn’t even understand the concept of “age of consent.”
October 1st, 2006 at 1:40 pmBrit Hume is not fit to lick Bill Clinton’s boots.
I’m glad the flesh is falling from his face. Serves you, right, Brit!
October 1st, 2006 at 1:41 pmThe age of consent is a legal distinction, not a moral one. What Clinton did was grossly immoral.
Linda Reeves: Ask Juanita Broadrick if she would like to be alone in the Oval Office with Clinton.
October 1st, 2006 at 1:41 pmDavid,
Thanks for that. The suicide of a child is a tragedy all it’s own, and shouldn’t be brought into a discussion like this.
October 1st, 2006 at 1:41 pmAge of consent in DC is 16…
http://www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm
I’m pretty liberal, but I think that is way too young.
I thought it was 18 everywhere. It should be.
October 1st, 2006 at 1:42 pmHurling insults at me won’t alter the facts.
October 1st, 2006 at 1:43 pmSo what?. Hume’s a piece of shit. Case closed.
October 1st, 2006 at 1:44 pmBrit Hume must think that going after underage little boys is the same as an affair with a women of legal age.
As the Page put it, “Sick, Sick, Sick”
October 1st, 2006 at 1:44 pmBiologically and psychologically, the difference between 16 and 18 is arbitrary.
October 1st, 2006 at 1:44 pmCNN’s Dana Bash issued the same comparison. The Lewinsky affair is equal to an adult sending erotic and offensive emails to a minor.
October 1st, 2006 at 1:45 pmI hope for the young man’s sake that it ended with the emails. It has taken me nearly fourty years to come to terms with an attempted assault. The fact the family did not want to prosecute is understandable.
Why should the family have to prosecute? Sex crimes are the only crimes where the victim must prosecute.
unbelievable,
I’m certain that Foley must have kept his horny solicitations in DC only, because he knew about the age of consent thing — that’s why he resigned.
I crack myself up…
October 1st, 2006 at 1:45 pmAn 18 year old having sex with a 17 year old would not be arrested, and calling that pedophilia is idiotic.
Comment by Say+No+to+Censorship — October 1, 2006 @ 1:37 pm
Do some research, yes they would. They have been. It’s called rape.
We’re not talking about an 18 year old and a 17 year old. We’re talking about a 53 year old and a 16 year old. That is pedophilia.
October 1st, 2006 at 1:45 pmBiologically and psychologically, the difference between 16 and 18 is arbitrary.
Comment by Say+No+to+Censorship — October 1, 2006 @ 1:44 pm
Prove it.
October 1st, 2006 at 1:48 pmFoley just wants to touch little boys, you know, like the Catholic Priests.
What’s wrong with that? Foley is just trying to be closer to God in his own wierdo way.
October 1st, 2006 at 1:48 pmI’m certain that Foley must have kept his horny solicitations in DC only, because he knew about the age of consent thing — that’s why he resigned.
Legally, he’s off the hook - but morally, I think most people who’ve been around 16 and 17 year olds know that they are still emotionally immature and incapable of conscious consent about sex most of the time. And anyone in his 50’s who finds them attractive has a problem. I’m only 39 and I definitely think they are still children.
I crack myself up…
Comment by Zooey — October 1, 2006 @ 1:45 pm
I don’t think you’re alone : )
October 1st, 2006 at 1:52 pmIts both funny, sad, and quite telling of the Republican party, that the Republican trolls on here are defending a pedophile. I mean how much lower can these people stoop?
October 1st, 2006 at 1:52 pm“Do some research, yes they would. They have been. It’s called rape.”
Nonsense.
Attraction to a 16 year old is not classified ass pedophilia. That remains incorrect. Sick yes, pedophilia, no.
“According to the DSM-IV definition, pedophilia involves sexual activity by an adult with a prepubescent child.”
http://www.medem.com/ MedLB/ article_detaillb.cfm?article_ID=ZZZUZRUZGLC&sub_cat=355
But don’t let facts get in your way now.
October 1st, 2006 at 1:53 pmAre these people so stupid to make a comparison between sex between adults and sexually advances between a male adult and a minor.
No, but they know that many people in America are that stupid. Hume is preacing to the choir, as they say.
October 1st, 2006 at 1:55 pmShamRockNRoll,
Calling him “sick” is a defense? Are you a liar, a moron, or an illiterate?
October 1st, 2006 at 1:56 pmSince Hume did not say the Clinton situation and the Foley situation were identical, what is your point?
Hume named several instances of immoral conduct by Democrats that Democrats did nothing about or deffended. That point remains unrefuted.
October 1st, 2006 at 1:59 pmThis is Insane!!!!!
So let me get this right, the Sponsors of Fox News accept this comparison?
Am I to believe that all the Mortgage Companies, Pharmacutecal companies and Oil companies are going to continue advertising on a channel who’s lead anchor compares the FOLEY story to the Clinton Monika story?
Come On!
October 1st, 2006 at 1:59 pmSince Hume did not say the Clinton situation and the Foley situation were identical, what is your point?
Hume named several instances of immoral conduct by Democrats that Democrats did nothing about or deffended. That point remains unrefuted.
Comment by Say+No+to+Censorship — October 1, 2006 @ 1:59 pm
Yes, well what exactly is your point? That both parties have ignored immoral conduct? Does that surprise you?
October 1st, 2006 at 2:01 pmRep. Mark Foley is a sexual predator and a pervert who stalks underage teenage boys! He is not a pedophile because they like kids under 13, so pre-puberty children!
October 1st, 2006 at 2:04 pmBob’s:
No, Democrats ignore or defend immoral conduct, Republicans do not.
October 1st, 2006 at 2:04 pmFrom your article:
“DSM-IV Criteria for Pedophilia
Over a period of at least six months, recurrent, intense, sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 or younger).”
It says generally - it does not say only. Therefore it is subjective. 16 isn’t that much older than 13. They certainly aren’t that much more mature.
October 1st, 2006 at 2:06 pmBob’s:
No, Democrats ignore or defend immoral conduct, Republicans do not.
Comment by Say+No+to+Censorship — October 1, 2006 @ 2:04 pm
So, if it turns out that Republican leadership in the House, including Boehner and Hastert, actually knew about Foley’s activities as early as last spring and did nothing to rectify the situation, why do you think they did nothing about it then?
October 1st, 2006 at 2:07 pmAttraction to a 16 year old young man is homosexuality, not pedophilia. That is a fact.
Comment by Yes+I+Question+Your+Patriotism —
OK…Now, Is still your drunken uncle hiding in your closet at nights?
October 1st, 2006 at 2:07 pmDemocrats ignore or defend immoral conduct, Republicans do not.
Comment by Say+No+to+Censorship — October 1, 2006 @ 2:04 pm
No, you just redefine the word ‘immoral’ when ever your standard is held against you.
Wanna talk about Rush Limbaugh and drugs? The hypocrisy is astounding.
October 1st, 2006 at 2:08 pmWhen Clinton was done exploiting the young Monica Lewinsky, she lost her job at the White House. That’s sexual harassment. She should sue him.
Nice to see Democrats now view sexual harassment as trivial.
October 1st, 2006 at 2:09 pmAn 18 year old having sex with a 17 year old would not be arrested, and calling that pedophilia is idiotic.
October 1st, 2006 at 2:11 pmComment by Say+No+to+Censorship
Your sick. Get help.
Sexual and other physical maturation that occurs during puberty result from hormonal changes. As the child nears puberty, a gland in the brain called the pituitary gland increases the secretion of a hormone called follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH). This hormone then causes additional effects. In girls, FSH activates the ovaries to start producing estrogen. In boys, FSH causes sperm to develop.
In boys, it is difficult to know exactly when puberty is coming. There are changes that occur, but they occur gradually over a period of time rather than as a single event. While each male adolescent is different, the following are average ages when puberty changes may occur:
beginning of puberty: 9.5 to 14 years of age
http://uuhsc.utah.edu/ healthinfo/ adult/ men/ mladlsnt.htm
October 1st, 2006 at 2:11 pmRepublicans do not.
Comment by Say+No+to+Censorship
Thats probably in the top 5 stupidiest post ever.
October 1st, 2006 at 2:12 pmWhen Clinton was done exploiting the young Monica Lewinsky, she lost her job at the White House. That’s sexual harassment. She should sue him.
Comment by Say+No+to+Censorship — October 1, 2006 @ 2:09 pm
I agree.
October 1st, 2006 at 2:13 pmAre you a liar, a moron, or an illiterate?
Comment by Say+No+to+Censorship
Whatever he is, he can tell the difference between a child and an adult. You sure cant. Watch out.
October 1st, 2006 at 2:15 pmYou know, since we’re always reminded of just how superior Republicans are, I think it’s time we hold them to a higher standard of behavior.
October 1st, 2006 at 2:16 pmRepublicans aren’t defending Foley; Foley resigned.
Comment by Say+No+to+Censorship
How much time after it was known by Republicans? mmmm…
October 1st, 2006 at 2:17 pmNice to see Democrats now view sexual harassment as trivial.
Comment by Say+No+to+Censorship
Who the hell is a Democrat?
October 1st, 2006 at 2:19 pmHi Juan. :)
We’re taking part in the “massive distraction from the interrogation bill’s impending approval by GWB” thread.
How are you today?
October 1st, 2006 at 2:21 pmI wonder if they’ll drop the price of gas to 50 cents to try and manipulate the voting public?
This will be hard for them to recover.
I wonder how they, the party who bashes responsible gay behavior (marriage) will address the gay aspect of this nightmare.
October 1st, 2006 at 2:24 pmNice to see Democrats now view sexual harassment as trivial.
Comment by Say+No+to+Censorship
Perhaps you’d like to enighten us all and share a few of the Republicans’ position on sexual harassment issues.
October 1st, 2006 at 2:25 pmunbelievable,
Has Foley come out as a gay man?
October 1st, 2006 at 2:26 pmHow are you today?
Comment by Zooey
Fine, Zoo. But I got leaks from the cavity I was making. Its really annoying the experimental field. How are you? Hows true?
October 1st, 2006 at 2:31 pmHas Foley come out as a gay man?
Comment by Zooey — October 1, 2006 @ 2:26 pm
I don’t know. I doubt it. I was attempting to reference the fact that he wanted to have sex with a person of the same gender and how that will play out in the homophobic Republican Party considering their view of anything that isn’t male-female.
October 1st, 2006 at 2:31 pmSay+No+to+Censorship had to go clean his room.
October 1st, 2006 at 2:32 pmJuan, except for my frustration with this country, I am doing well. Went for a long walk in the dry wheat fields near my house this morning, and set my dog loose on the poor little bunnies. She’s too slow to catch them, so I don’t worry about them.
I haven’t heard from true for a couple days. Her daughter’s been ill, so I’m sure she’s focused on that.
Sorry your cavity leaks. That’s really gross! :P
October 1st, 2006 at 2:46 pmSay+No+to+Censorship had to go clean his room.
Comment by unbelievable — October 1, 2006 @ 2:32 pm
Or send out some email.
October 1st, 2006 at 2:47 pmunbelievable,
Say No to Censorship certainly needs to clean something…
I doubt he’s 16, but I bet he scopes out 16 year olds, and that’s why it’s a-ok with him.
October 1st, 2006 at 2:47 pmIf I were Brit Hume’s child, I’d have iced myself, too.
October 1st, 2006 at 2:52 pmWent for a long walk in the dry wheat fields near my house this morning, and set my dog loose on the poor little bunnies. Comment by Zooey
Sounds really nice. I dont know why but the American landscape (the one I picture -prairy, windy and colorful) reminds me to some sweet, sad banjo music.
Her daughter’s been ill, so I’m sure she’s focused on that.
Hope both are OK.
That’s really gross! :P
Comment by Zooey
I knew it. :)
Or send out some email.
October 1st, 2006 at 2:56 pmComment by Bob’s+Your+Uncle
I laughed a lot. Sorry.
Or send out some email.
Comment by Bob’s+Your+Uncle — October 1, 2006 @ 2:47 pm
Yeah, that is another possibility. I’m hoping he’s 16 and in his know-it-all phase, because the other possibilities are too alarming…
October 1st, 2006 at 2:59 pmI doubt he’s 16, but I bet he scopes out 16 year olds, and that’s why it’s a-ok with him.
Comment by Zooey — October 1, 2006 @ 2:47 pm
Sadly, that seems more likely. I just hope it’s not.
October 1st, 2006 at 3:00 pmZooey > neighbors of Foley in Florida are claiming he is a closeted Gay guy, but he likes to stalk underage males, so he is more a sexual predator than a normal homosexual! He solicits teenage boys, which means he is a borderline pedophile! Eventually if he never got caught, then perhaps he would have gone after consecutively younger boys?!
October 1st, 2006 at 3:00 pmneighbors of Foley in Florida are claiming he is a closeted Gay guy
October 1st, 2006 at 3:06 pmHomophobic mind: Well, he is not if he is on top.
According to the DSM-IV, he is not a pedophile. Jay Randal is a lying ignoramus. Democrats hate science and dissent.
October 1st, 2006 at 3:07 pmI’ve been looking around to find this stuff, and I don’t know if it’s true, but it may shed some light on the situation. This may seem weird, but here goes:
–age of consent in DC is 16. So if Foley and the page were going at it together, they’re not doing anything illegal. (Many other states would say the same.)
–However, under the so-called “Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006″ (of which Foley was a co-sponsor), along with 18 U.S.C. 2251, discussion or solicitation of sexual acts between Foley and any “minor” under the age of 18 would appear to be a criminal offense.
Which would suggest, it seems, that doing what he was doing was indeed illegal, as well as the moral issues.
October 1st, 2006 at 3:09 pmThinkFascist is censoring dissent again. Hypocrites. Cowards.
October 1st, 2006 at 3:09 pmhe is not a pedophile.
Comment by ThinkDissent
Maybe you got a shot with kids, too, moron.
Democrats hate science and dissent.
October 1st, 2006 at 3:10 pmComment by ThinkDissent
As opposed to the Republican President GWB who talks with God. Yeah, really scientific!
Post 131 ThinkDissent > shame on you for defending a perverted sexual predator like Foley on TP threads! How much $$$ did Karl Rove pay you?
October 1st, 2006 at 3:12 pmDemocrats hate science and dissent.
Comment by ThinkDissent — October 1, 2006 @ 3:07 pm
Say No to Censorship is back… Wallace is that you?
Good, wallace is a 16 year old boy.
October 1st, 2006 at 3:13 pmJuan, most Americans, including most Democrats, believe in God, you bigot.
All I did was quote the DSM-IV, moron.
October 1st, 2006 at 3:13 pmAccording to the DSM-IV, he is not a pedophile. Jay Randal is a lying ignoramus. Democrats hate science and dissent.
Comment by ThinkDissent
According to every thinking (read: Progressive) mind in the country, Foley is a pervert, no DSM-IV is required to figure that out.
Question: When you mention science, are you referring to Creationism or actual science?
October 1st, 2006 at 3:13 pmNo one defended Foley. Stop lying Jay Randal. Quoting the DSM-IV is not a defense.
October 1st, 2006 at 3:14 pmNo one defended Foley. Stop lying Jay Randal. Quoting the DSM-IV is not a defense.
No surprise, unbelievable supports censorship too.
October 1st, 2006 at 3:15 pmThinkFascist is censoring dissent again. Hypocrites. Cowards.
Comment by ThinkDissent
And yet you and your comments are still here.
Believe me, I know what it takes to get deleted, so if some of your comments are being deleted, you’re just being frickin’ nasty.
October 1st, 2006 at 3:16 pmunbelievable > ThinkDissent could be Seixon? He is confused sexually and would be willing to defend a pervert like Foley on here for money!
October 1st, 2006 at 3:16 pmZoophile:
Garry Studds did not resign, Democrats reelected him. Barney Frank did not resign, Democrats reelected him. Foley resigned. In other words, you are full of sh!t.
Democrats aren’t against perverts. QED
October 1st, 2006 at 3:18 pmWhat it takes to get deleted is to disagree with liberals.
October 1st, 2006 at 3:19 pmAll I did was quote the DSM-IV, moron.
Comment by ThinkDissent
Quoting the DSM-IV is not a defense.
Comment by ThinkDissent
Wow. Within two comments of each other. It’s called whiplash.
October 1st, 2006 at 3:19 pmJuan, most Americans, including most Democrats, believe in God, you bigot.
But do not claim to talk to him to make decisions, a-hole. Unless drugs made you lose half of your brain.
October 1st, 2006 at 3:21 pmAll I did was quote the DSM-IV, moron.
Comment by ThinkDissent
You can quote whatever you want. But if I had a 16 or 17 year old and you are molesting him/her, I will DSM-IV you away.
ThinkDissent,
Gary Studds and Barney Frank are not perverts, they are gay men engaged in legal relationships with adults. I see what your real problem is now.
What it takes to get deleted is to disagree with liberals.
Comment by ThinkDissent
Still here?
October 1st, 2006 at 3:22 pmZoophile,
Studds was with a minor. Frank had a prostitution ring being run out of his house. What high standards you have! *L*
October 1st, 2006 at 3:26 pmThinkDissent could be Seixon? He is confused sexually and would be willing to defend a pervert like Foley on here for money!
Comment by Jay+Randal — October 1, 2006 @ 3:16 pm
Could be. Though the extreme immaturity sounds a lot like wallace too.
Either way, it’s not worth addressing him anymore. Wallace is 16 and Seixon is what 21 going on 13?
October 1st, 2006 at 3:30 pmThinkHeadUpAss,
It’s not my standards that matter here, only yours.
Got a link for your allegations about Studds & Frank?
October 1st, 2006 at 3:31 pmI can’t condone Foley’s behaviour but lets get real here. Where is the outrage for the 14 yr old Iraqi child whos family was murdered and then raped and murdered herself? Foley and his clique bear the reponsibility for this and countless other atrocities that have brought enormous shame to America and its moral standing in the world.
October 1st, 2006 at 3:32 pmThinkHeadUpAss,
Comment by Zooey — October 1, 2006 @ 3:31 pm
Funny…
October 1st, 2006 at 3:33 pm“Funny…”
If you’re 12.
October 1st, 2006 at 3:35 pmI would like to agree with the first comment, but can’t. In case someone else would like to send an email, Brit Hume can be reached at special@foxnews.com.
I sent him the definitions of pedophilia and adultery and asked that if he doesn’t know the difference to not make comparisons between the two.
October 1st, 2006 at 3:36 pmFoley and his clique bear the reponsibility for this and countless other atrocities that have brought enormous shame to America and its moral standing in the world.
Comment by Bruce
There is only one thing to do: To grease back the guillotine. These murderers deserve nothing but that. There are not enough juries for the crimes of these people.
October 1st, 2006 at 3:37 pmtyler,
According to the DSM-IV, Foley is not a pedophile. He is a homosexual.
October 1st, 2006 at 3:38 pmtyler,
According to the DSM-IV, Foley is not a pedophile. He is a homosexual.
October 1st, 2006 at 3:39 pmI can’t condone Foley’s behaviour but lets get real here. Where is the outrage for the 14 yr old Iraqi child whos family was murdered and then raped and murdered herself?
There isn’t a thread for that today. But, you’re right.
I guess we’re just happy that the Republicans are being exposed right before the election when they usually pull off some elaborate scam to get votes from teh sheep.
Foley and his clique bear the reponsibility for this and countless other atrocities that have brought enormous shame to America and its moral standing in the world.
Comment by Bruce — October 1, 2006 @ 3:32 pm
We haven’t forgotten. We’re just trying to find something that will convince the sheeple to vote anti-neocon. Clearly the Conservative Christians in this country do not care about 14 year old gilrs in Iraq or anywhere else not America. Knowing that, we have to point out the people in tehir party who prey on the 16 year old boy that they do care about.
Sad, I agree, but to defeat them, we must use what works.
I’ve been showing my students, twice a week, the architecture from other countries and cultures. But I don’t just show them buildings, I teach them about the history, culture, geography and even religions across the globe. They love it. Several have talked me into taking them on a trip this summer to as many countries as possible. They are excited about seeing the world! It’s a small victory, I know, but I thought you’d like to know.
October 1st, 2006 at 3:42 pmIf you’re 12.
Comment by ThinkCensorship — October 1, 2006 @ 3:35 pm
You are. Well, close enough.
October 1st, 2006 at 3:44 pmYou are. *L*
How juvenile.
October 1st, 2006 at 3:46 pmHow juvenile.
Comment by ThinkCensorship — October 1, 2006 @ 3:46 pm
You’re that too wallace.
Well, nice to see you again. I hope you get a date to the prom this year so maybe you won’t need to force yourself on Think Progress.
October 1st, 2006 at 3:52 pmHume then called for an Independent Prosecutor, right?
October 1st, 2006 at 4:14 pmIf the statute is correct, Foley chatting up minors on IM is now illegal, per a law he put in place, because it’s a minor; Clinton had sex with someone of age. That’s the difference. Both were on some level abusing their position; Foley was a step worse because its a minor involved.
October 1st, 2006 at 4:31 pm“Garry Studds did not resign, Democrats reelected him. Barney Frank did not resign, Democrats reelected him. Foley resigned. In other words, you are full of sh!t.
Democrats aren’t against perverts. QED ”
Dude, shut up. Studds SHOULD have resigned. He should have been out of office as a result of what he did. And Foley resigning after this comes out doens’t make him a good guy, it makes him intelligent enough to know he should have resigned. But you’re still then defending the House managers who left this to fester for 11 months. Why would you defend that?
October 1st, 2006 at 4:36 pmDavid,
“Clinton had sex with someone of age. That’s the difference.”
So then if Foley had been IM-ing with an 18 year old, then you would have no problem with it at all, correct?
October 1st, 2006 at 4:37 pmDavid.
Stop lying. I haven’t defended anything.
October 1st, 2006 at 4:38 pmI’ve never met or even seen Brit Hume, nor is it likely that I ever will see or meet him. However, people see him every day and I would applauld anyone who just beat the ever-lovin-shit out of this Bush appologizer.
October 1st, 2006 at 4:43 pm“So then if Foley had been IM-ing with an 18 year old, then you would have no problem with it at all, correct?”
18, as in, not a minor? Yes. No problem. Moral problem if he’s cheating on his wife/partner? Sure. Potentially abusing his position? Yes. Still kinda icky because he’s 52? Definitely. But no - I don’t see it legally as the problem I see this as. But to try to blame Democrats somehow? I mean, gimme a break.
October 1st, 2006 at 4:45 pmEvidently Brit Hume can’t tell the difference between a 21 year old woman and a 16 year old boy. This might get Brit into trouble one of these days.
October 1st, 2006 at 4:47 pmThe hypocrites of ThinkFascist are censoring again. Cowards.
October 1st, 2006 at 5:02 pmHume: blah bla bla blahahhh blah…beep….
October 1st, 2006 at 5:09 pmEvidently Brit Hume can’t tell the difference between a 21 year old woman and a 16 year old boy.
You might want to explain that, 5 years, female, male, sexual relations, yes, web chat, yes, oh wait a minute, thats what we’re doing here.
October 1st, 2006 at 5:44 pmWhen Clinton was done exploiting the young Monica Lewinsky, she lost her job at the White House. That’s sexual harassment. She should sue him.
Nice to see Democrats now view sexual harassment as trivial.
Comment by Say+No+to+Censorship — October 1, 2006 @ 2:09 pm
For someone who defends Hume by claiming he didn’t say the Lewinsky/Clinton affair was identical to Rep. Foley’s interest in a young page, you sure are referring to it a lot.
October 1st, 2006 at 5:47 pmZoophile,
Studds was with a minor. Frank had a prostitution ring being run out of his house. What high standards you have! *L*
Comment by ThinkCensorship — October 1, 2006 @ 3:26 pm
While you are at it, any chance you can reveal what male prostitute Jeff Gannon was doing at the White House press conferences? And how he got a press pass from the White House when he wasn’t even a member of the press?
If memory serves, he paid other visits (read: no press conferences going on) to the White House as well.
October 1st, 2006 at 6:08 pmFoley = pedophile, you know, like all those creeps on the Dateline “To Catch a Predator” show.
Clinton = not a pedophile, as Lewinsky was a consenting adult.
October 1st, 2006 at 6:09 pmEvidently Brit Hume can’t tell the difference between a 21 year old woman and a 16 year old boy.
Comment by RealScientist — October 1, 2006 @ 4:47 pm
Very funny!
October 1st, 2006 at 6:30 pmMr. Say+No+to+Censorship:
October 1st, 2006 at 6:35 pmWill you please forward me a picture of your son and his email address? I know a former Congressman who may be interested.
I see the developing Republican talking point on this issue: 16 may be young, but is of the legal consent therefore Foley is a homosexual, not a pedophile.
No matter how predatory his actions arer, please wash rinse repeat.
Is there anything you trolls won’t defend?
Just read this on crooksandliars.com; may be posted on another Foley thread:
Why all the concern if Foley was only having innocent conversations with pages?
October 1st, 2006 at 6:36 pmBrit and others like him in Fox has one job to do everyweek…to spin what does not suit their station…He is no different than Hannity, O’Rielly..and the rest of the group..the difference is their style…but the goal is the same…to spin…
October 1st, 2006 at 6:37 pmProminent left-wing blogger and homosexual activist Glenn Greenwald agrees with me:
October 1st, 2006 at 6:44 pmRobG,
No one, including me, is defending Foley. Stop lying.
October 1st, 2006 at 6:50 pmMore Greenwald:
October 1st, 2006 at 6:51 pmThinkagain,
October 1st, 2006 at 6:53 pmYou’re still ignoring the other law, the one that Foley was a co-sponsor of, that said it’s illegal to engage in sexual discussions et al with a “minor,” that is, someone other 18. Which is illegal.
Lets see the stains on the dress?
October 1st, 2006 at 6:56 pmDavid,
I have not ever said that Foley did nothing wrong or illegal. Stop lying.
I have agreed with Glenn Greenwald that Foley is a homosexual, not a pedophile.
October 1st, 2006 at 6:57 pmHume is Murdoch’s lap boy.
October 1st, 2006 at 7:08 pmFox News supports pedophilia and sexual harrassment.
October 1st, 2006 at 7:10 pmX supports sheep buggery and necrophilia.
October 1st, 2006 at 7:19 pmNobody is lying. You’re still not addressing whether you’re defending Foley or not for these illegal advances.
October 1st, 2006 at 7:25 pmFoley’s behavior is disgusting, morally and maybe legally wrong. But was there any sexual contact? That is a difference between Foley and Clinton and I think it’s significant. Do you think it’s morally worse to send inappropriate email messages than to have inappropriate sexual contact with an intern?
Hume’s point was that Clinton is still the hero of the Democrats. I don’t think Foley will ever be anyone’s hero.
October 1st, 2006 at 7:34 pmKnowbody can really be surprised by Humes strategy: Bill CLinton is to blame for origianl sin and us being thrown from Eden.
REally, could have seen this coming a few days ago. One of the right’s key campaigning tools in solidifying their base is to remind them of Clinton constantly.
October 1st, 2006 at 8:46 pm16-year old boys are much less mature than 18-year old boys and 16-year old girls. Adolescent girls are about 2 years ahead of adolescent boys, so the comparable maturity level for a girl would be 14 years old.
October 1st, 2006 at 8:48 pmjust back in town… started reading today’s threads, get to this, and…
October 1st, 2006 at 9:07 pmhuh… shouldda seen this one coming…
of course… always with the clinton…
David,
You are lying. You just did again. here it is: ‘You’re still not addressing whether you’re defending Foley or not for these illegal advances.”
I’ve addressed it repeatedly.
Eargy,
Clinton is to blame for his immoral and illegal conduct. His defenders are to blame for excusing his conduct.
October 1st, 2006 at 9:17 pmI believe I mentioned this last week…
Whenever someone mentions Hitler during a thread, it’s known as “Godwinning” the thread. Said person AUTOMATICALLY loses the argument.
I propose a new rule…again…whenever someone sez “but, but, but Clinton” it should be called “Numfarring” the thread.
WHY? Hell, why not? I would love to be the scapegoat that the Rethugs use to lose an argument:)
October 1st, 2006 at 9:17 pmnumfar,
That’s only fair if Democrats never mention Clinton again either.
October 1st, 2006 at 9:19 pmI doubt that the Attorney General and FBI will conduct a real investigation. The are part of the Executive Branch and are even more corrupt than their confederates in the House leadership that they’re supposed to be investigating.
October 1st, 2006 at 9:32 pm[…] Brit Hume strokes Clinton’s rod while fingering his own asshole […]
October 1st, 2006 at 9:32 pmObviously, attempting to seduce a 16 or 17-year-old is not the same thing as what Clinton did. But Gerry Studds did in fact have sex with a 17-year-old page; Studds was censured, a merely symbolic punishment, albeit one which often ends a political career. And Studds expressed his contempt for the censure proceedings by turning his back on the House (this last fact I am relying on Wiki for; the rest are unquestionably true). Yet Studds was reelected several times after this.
What Foley did may have been illegal because of the internet angle and his own (and ironic) law, but given that actual sex with a 16-year-old boy is legal in DC, it is not clear that this unmarried man’s attempts with the page (who did not work for him personally) are significantly more wrong than Studd’s actual sex with a page, or indeed, married Clinton’s actual sex with an office subordinate (adultery, sexual harrassment, which are admittedly civil cases, not criminal). They’re all scumbags. (Frank I would not so categorize, unless someone can prove that he knew the hustler was working out of Frank’s apartment.)
For what it’s worth, I defended Studds (if a call to the Howie Carr show counts) against censure, given the age of consent and the fact that the page did not work in Studds’ office, but I was not thrilled that he ran and was returned to office by the voters.
October 1st, 2006 at 9:45 pm“…When Clinton was done exploiting the young Monica