Mark Foley | News | Republican Party | Towleroad Guide to the Tube

BigGayDeal.com

The Talk: Foley, Jon Stewart, Hastert, Bay Buchanan

road.jpg Resign, Mr. Speaker: Washington Times calls for Hastert's Resignation: "Either he was grossly negligent for not taking the red flags fully into account and ordering a swift investigation, for not even remembering the order of events leading up to last week's revelations -- or he deliberately looked the other way in hopes that a brewing scandal would simply blow away. He gave phony answers Friday to the old and ever-relevant questions of what did he know and when did he know it? Mr. Hastert has forfeited the confidence of the public and his party, and he cannot preside over the necessary coming investigation, an investigation that must examine his own inept performance."

Two videos via AmericaBlog....

Conservative Bay Buchanan Rips Hastert, and Hastert gives confused, defensive interview to CNN.

Buchanan: "That email had predator stamped all over it."

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. On one side I am hoping all of this negative republican drama brings their ratings down to make a difference during the elections. On another side Im starting to see the idiotic connection the republicans preach between gay tolerance and pedophilia starting to come to the stage. What Foley did was wrong. If Hastert and others knew what he was doing yet did nothing to save a seat then they are just as bad. I just dont think the situation called for hell bent politicians who consider "thinking like a parent" grabbing a twelve gauage or beating the shit out of someone.

    Posted by: Toto | Oct 3, 2006 3:12:39 PM


  2. Uh-oh...I'm starting to see the fact that FOX suppressed this for a year ALL OVER THE NEWS websites...

    Why did FOX NEWS suppress this for a WHOLE YEAR???

    Posted by: bambambam | Oct 3, 2006 3:19:00 PM


  3. Whether it be Hastert or Mike Rogers...or ABC or Fox...anyone who sat on this story, and held back revealing it for political purposes needs to rounded up and waterboarded.

    Posted by: Pompeius | Oct 3, 2006 3:19:57 PM


  4. Mike Rogers, oh please, you know he ran hither and yon with the story and was ignored... it was FOX AND ONLY FOX, protecting the hard-right wing. Suppressing the story for a year.

    It would have been out and gone already if only FUCKEDNOISE channel had done the right thing. But no, they have to preserve the homophobic Republican congress and protect every Republican creep boy-toucher. It's FOX that suppressed the story till election time.

    Posted by: bambambam | Oct 3, 2006 3:29:17 PM


  5. Mike Rogers was going on about Foley being a closet case for some time now, true. But only now does he reveal he's been sitting on the incriminating Foley IMs...waiting for JUST the right moment to reveal them.

    This quote from his own blog:

    “As people know, it’s not always possible for me to disclose my role in some of the activities.

    I can say this. I had the emails before they were on the net. Additionally, I had the additional emails, written by the page to a friend. The story was being written by a number of outlets and I provided additional information to reporters involved in the breaking of this story.

    Was the central figure in reporting on Foley’s latest scandal? Never said I was. Was my work on the case important to helping make sure it came out before the election? Yes."

    Note the words "I had the emails before they were on the net."

    Mike Rogers is as guilty as Hastert. Condemned by his own words, in fact.

    Posted by: Pompeius | Oct 3, 2006 3:39:14 PM


  6. FOX NEWS had the e-mails over a year ago...they buried them.

    FOX NEWS. Mike Rogers exposed them as soon as he had them. Hastert and FOX suppressed them for a year and tried to make it past the election, when ABC found them and ran immediately with the story.

    WHERE WAS FOX? WHERE WAS HASTERT, BONER AND REYNOLDS? I'll tell you...consulting with Rove to see whether there was a chance in hell of shining this on till after the election. If Fox had did the right thing, this story would be a year old. But no...that's karma.

    Posted by: bambambam | Oct 3, 2006 3:45:22 PM


  7. Why is it that you have to fling out lie after speculation about every supposed non-Republican who is to blame (NOT) for Foley when the Republicans and Fox Noise commentators are falling from the sky as enablers of Republican child-touchers?

    We need a news ticker here to keep up with the Republican enablers...Mike Rogers was ringing the alarm like the screaming girl we know he is, and being ignored because he is gay -- just like you normally want him to be. It was HASTERT'S JOB and FOX NEWS' JOB to expose this, and they have suppressed it for a year.

    Now who again is guilty? Fox News. They had the story before Rogers did. Before ANYONE did.

    NY-26: Did Reynolds Authorize Aide To Ask ABC To Kill Story?

    By Greg Sargent | bio

    As Election Central reported below, it's now been confirmed that Kirk Fordham, the chief of staff to NRCC chief Tom Reynolds, offered an exclusive on Mark Foley's decision to resign to ABC News's Brian Ross if Ross agreed not to run his story about the salacious Foley emails. Ross declined. I've now emailed two questions to Reynolds communications director L.D. Platt. (1) Did Reynolds know that Fordham was doing this? (2) Did Reynolds authorize it? Either Reynolds knew his chief of staff was trying to prevent the public from knowing that a GOP Congressman was soliciting teens, or he didn't. Either Reynolds authorized it, or he didn't. Will Reynolds answer?

    Posted by: bambambam | Oct 3, 2006 3:53:07 PM


  8. Sigh. BBB, what color is the sky on your planet?

    As noted above, ABC sat on the story for months, they did not run it "immediately."

    I just quoted you Mike Rogers above saying he had the IMs for awhile, before they were first posted on the net...he, by his own words, did not "expose them as soon as he had them."

    Read for comprehension, BBB.

    Posted by: Pompeius | Oct 3, 2006 3:57:54 PM


  9. News orgs often sit on stories waiting for confirmation from a second source. They also don't feel that law enforcement is their "job". Sometimes law enforcement asks them to sit on a story while an investigation is in progress too. Not sure what is going on here though.

    Posted by: Anon | Oct 3, 2006 4:02:23 PM


  10. Seems remarkably like the catholic church methinks. Look the other way and it will go away.

    This is absolutely no surprise. As I told my friends when this term began, republicans and the far right get so far away from the actual job of being human and relating to the world that their mistakes surface with alarming frequecy. I look forward to more in the coming months.

    Posted by: Br!on | Oct 3, 2006 4:16:19 PM


  11. OMG, here's yet another REPUBLICAN ENABLER of the child molester. Who has been trying to suppress this story UP UNTIL EVEN THIS VERY MOMENT???

    Republicans and Fox News.

    ABC ran with the story IMMEDIATELY and was STONEWALLED by HASTERT, BONER AND REYNOLDS, who tried to negotiate hiding the story LAST FRIDAY.

    Comprehend the facts. ABC ran with the story IMMEDIATELY and was stonewalled till LAST FRIDAY by the Republican enablers.

    Comprehend the facts.


    Congressman Tom Reynolds (R-NY) claims chief of staff helped accused child sex predator try to cover-up evidence "on their own time," so it's okay

    by John in DC - 10/03/2006 03:59:00 PM


    First off, we now need to know from Brian Ross of ABC, and from every other reporter in Washington, DC who spoke with Reynolds' chief of staff Kirk Fordham last Thursday and Friday, whether Fordham was only speaking to them after hours, as Reynolds claims, or whether he was speaking to them during business hours on Thursday and Friday.

    Second of all, is Reynolds going to take responsibility for his own chief of staff's involvement in this scandal or not? At what point does anyone in the Republican party actually take responsibility for their actions? Reynolds didn't know, and says he shouldn't be expected to know, if his chief of staff goes and allegedly works for 2 days to help an accused child sex predator cover-up evidence of a potential crime against children? And Reynolds is apparently fine with this?

    More from the local Channel 4 (there is a video link on this page, that's where you'll find this quote from Reynolds):
    "I didn't give him [chief of staf Kirk Fordham] permission to have any conversations he's had at any time with ahhhh Mark Foley, either as his friend or former employer, any more than I think it would be highly unusual for anybody here that they would ask permission before they talked to ahhhh somebody on any nature, on their own time."

    1. So you didn't give him permission, but at the same time you're saying that you didn't need to give him permission because your office policy is that it's okay for your chief of staff to do things like help child predators in your workplace without checking with you first? And that gets you off the hook, how?

    2. On their own time? So the chief of staff didn't do any of this, didn't talk to any reporters, didn't confer with Foley at all, during the work day?

    3. And if your chief of staff asked for vacation time off to help the child predator during the day, did the chief of staff tell you, his boss, why he was taking time off?

    4. And if your chief of staff told you he was taking time off to help a child predator, did you object?

    5. All hell was breaking loose, your name was being implicated in all of this, but you didn't have a problem with your chief of staff taking a vacation (if in fact he even took one)?

    6. Your chief of staff was speaking on behalf of Foley to the media - and you expect us to believe that you still never got word of that fact? And if you did get word, did you say or do anything about it, voice any objection?

    7. Now you know that your chief of staff tried to organize a cover-up of key evidence in this case. What do you plan to do about it? Or is this the kind of thing that you condone in your office, and apparently your party?

    8. What role if any did your chief of staff play when you first found out about this scandal months ago, and what if any role did he play subsequently?

    Posted by: bambambam | Oct 3, 2006 4:16:59 PM


  12. More damning evidence against Mike Rogers...again, via his own words.

    Check out this entry by him from March 2005:

    http://www.blogactive.com/2005/03/mark-foley-anoteher-closeted-anti-gay.html

    He's doing his usual outing routine on Foley. BUT note where he says that sources tell him Foley likes "close to underage" men.

    LOL! Really, Mike what were you HINTING at back in March 2005? Why did you not TELL us what you knew back in that non-election year or 2005? LOL!

    Oh, but read the LAST sentence..oh, it's the kicker!

    "When we get closer to the midterm elections I'm sure more will surface."

    LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!

    Really, Mike, what an amazingly accurate "prediction." One might almost say TOO amazing in fact. I wonder, to make this spot on "prediction" back in March 2005, was Mike Rogers in possesion of 1) a crystal ball; 2) tarot cards; or 3) IM messages of a sexual nature between Foley and underage pages?

    Call me a cynic and a skeptic of the psychic arts if you must...but my money is on #3.

    How many pages were raped by Foley since March 2005 I wonder?

    No, I will no longer say Rogers is as guilty as Hastert. I'll say now that Rogers is more disgustingly guilty.

    Posted by: Pompeius | Oct 3, 2006 4:26:14 PM


  13. Wow... talk about state of denial...

    Like it was Mike Rogers' job to RUN THE CONGRESS and PUT FOLEY IN CHARGE OF THE PAGES???

    That was HASTERT'S JOB...

    Rogers screamed out the truth, at the risk of his own safety -- now that we know that Fox News and Limbaugh are causing the PAGE to get death threats -- and HASTERT and FOX SUPPRESSED the truth...

    But to get to something else important...

    Let's not forget for all of us who were upset about Macy's anti-gay disappearance against gay manniquins...

    FOX NOISE shill Sean Hannity, who EVEN TODAY is trying to blame the PAGES for the whole scandal, was hired by GENERAL MOTORS to be a celebrity endorser.

    We need to let GM know that we don't want cars shilled to us by child molester ENABLERS like Fox News and Hannity, who blames the PAGES.

    Posted by: banbanban | Oct 3, 2006 4:39:22 PM


  14. wow

    hey Bam and pomp

    Can I suggest the 2 of you take a deep breath and realize that you both agree pretty much on the main issues of Foley, the cover up, and disgust with those posting on this site making up excuses

    You guys are only differing on the news media angle, and right now....Not the largest part of the story......

    :-)

    Anon..... Ken mehlman is the RNC chairman...a closeted guy who happens to also be jewish. I do not know what is more shoking. A closeted gay working for the republicans or a jew working for the Republicans. LOL Anyway; Mehlman championed the anti-gay marriage amendment though he loves to troll DC gay bars.

    Posted by: jimmyboyo | Oct 3, 2006 4:41:02 PM


  15. This is how I know there are true Republicans here...Hastert and Fox News suppress a story for a YEAR...the leader of Congress and the biggest cable news network...

    but Republicans IGNORE the truth and ATTACK someone, whether Mike Rogers, the pages themselves, who has nothing to do with control of pages and news dissemination.

    Just the way the REPUBLICANS IGNORED Osama Bin Laden after he killed 3000 and ATTACKED someone else who had nothing to do with it...Iraq. The pattern can't be broken. Admit it. Incompetents and self-haters. That's the Republican way.

    Posted by: banbanbanboom | Oct 3, 2006 4:50:33 PM


  16. Post Foley polling in his district:

    http://www.slate.com/id/2150865/&#foleyseat

    Posted by: Mitch | Oct 3, 2006 4:50:58 PM


  17. Towleroad gleefully citing notorious gay-hater Bay Buchanan is utterly disgusting to me. I have to conclude all the talk about gay discrimination means nothing here, when they feel they can attack the Repubicans with a nice bit of homophobia. Those emails only had predator stamped all over them if you assume every gay man is a predator.

    Think twice, towleroad, this is a dangerous game you are playing. If the Democrats take power due to playing with homophobia, do you really think that is good for gays? It's actually just another victory for gay-haters, don't kid yourself.

    Posted by: Jimmy Jimmereeno | Oct 3, 2006 4:54:53 PM


  18. Foley is a creep and should have been tossed out, but I'm getting sick of all this "child molestor" talk. Rep. Studds had sex with a minor (17) and was reeelcted by his district numerous times. It's so obvious that many of you only care about this because Foley is a Republican. I understand that, politics is politics, but cut the sanctimony already. So far

    1. We don't know if Foley actually "molested" anyone.
    2. A sixteen-year-old is not exactly a child, and, in fact, the age of consent in many states is 16. The page Studds had sex with was 17 at the time.
    3. The IMs seems to indicate the 16 year old was a willing participant.

    None of this makes what Foley did anything but wrong, but you guys are going so over-the-top with this rhetoric, it's just sad. And don't think this is not playing into America's homphobia, it is.

    Posted by: Jimmy Jimmereeno | Oct 3, 2006 5:07:29 PM


  19. Yes, you are right, Jimmy. In the end, this is how it's going to look: Foley actually touched NOBODY. He ended a 19-year relationship because he knew that like David Dreier, he would never advance in the Republican Party if he had an actual normal partner relationship.

    So he was trying to make do, pathetically, with IMs. Because he didn't want to be attacked by the Republican haters like Boner and Blunt and Hastert, if he tried to advance in the Republican leadership, the way Dreier was.

    That's the truly sad piece here. He HAD a 19 year partner relationship. But the Republicans forced him to give it up and try to kill off his own sexuality.

    Posted by: bambambam | Oct 3, 2006 5:12:39 PM


  20. Newest e-mails detail foley telling a kid that he and his friend can come "party" at his house and they can drink. The boys were underage to drink.

    You can bet the info on the touching will be coming out next.

    On the news media outlet thing. i have read up on it and agree with both bam and Pomp. I think ABC could have moved faster on this, BUT comparitively to FOX they did move fast. Fox had this for a year while ABC had it for 1-2 months. both guilty of being slow, but FOX is more guilty

    Anyway; Rhandi Rhodes today interviewd some Department of Justice guys who said that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales KNEW!!!!! about Foleygate and that it was lower down people in the Department of Justice who finaly leaked all of this because they were tired of being told to stand down on it.

    That is HUGE!!!!!!!!! Gonzales has been a bush boy since all the way back in texas. The scandal/ cover up is stretching up into the white house now

    Posted by: jimmyboyo | Oct 3, 2006 5:24:46 PM


  21. Jimmyboyo, once again I agree with you (gasp!) but don't forget Rogers; it's beyond denying now that he's been nestling this in his bosom since at least March 2005.

    BTW, where does it say Fox had this for a year? I see the quote where the Miami Herald says it knew, another paper knew, and in a vague sort of way that Fox knew. I say "vague" because they may be referring to a local Fox affiliate TV or radio station...which BTW is QUITE a different thing than saying that the national office of Fox News knew...THIS is a HUGE discrepancy that needs to be clarified...BBB may have been screaming at the top of his lungs here, all for naught...LOL!

    Posted by: Pompeius | Oct 3, 2006 5:58:02 PM


  22. Don't advertise your senior moments...

    From the October 2 AP article:

    Meanwhile, Florida newspapers -- who were leaked copies of the e-mail with the Louisiana boy last year -- defended their decision not to run stories. Both The St. Petersburg Times and The Miami Herald were given copies of the e-mail, as were other news organizations, including Fox News.

    (snip)

    Fox suppressed this news for nearly a YEAR...

    Nothing vague about this...

    Posted by: banbanban | Oct 3, 2006 6:16:22 PM


  23. THAT was the vague report what I was referring to! ARG!

    Sigh.

    It is precisely vague, for the precise reasons I just previously cited. There is no date given when the paper said "Fox" knew, and there no indication whether they are talking about Fox national, or some rinky-dink local Fox affiliate. Since it is talking about another local paper in the same breath, I'm actually inclined to believe the latter.

    Sigh, if BBB cannot comprehend such a simple point I may have to give up on him...

    Posted by: Pompeius | Oct 3, 2006 6:31:19 PM


  24. You sound just like Condi Rice, everything is vague and hard to remember...oh, and everyone else is to blame, and proof of FOX NEWS suppressing the story is not proof.

    Wonder why the reporter didn't say "local Fox station?" Because it was FOX News. Think the AP lawyers didn't vet that detail?

    P.S. There are no rinky-dink Fox affiliates. News Corporation is the richest media company on the goddam planet. If this were a Democratic scandal, Murdoch would have found it in the inbox of the lowliest nobody.

    You have the same kind of doubts that Condi Rice had when she saw the report titled: OSAMA BIN LADEN WILL STRIKE INSIDE U.S. WITH AIRCRAFT. Good Republicans, both of you. Keep denying. It's what you do the best.

    Posted by: banbanban | Oct 3, 2006 7:40:19 PM


  25. OK, call me Condi, but I still have doubts. So does the New York Times, apparantly:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/03/washington/03media.html?_r=1&oref=login

    This story mentions the 2 Florida papers sitting on the story, and it mentions ABC sitting on the story...but no mention of Fox. At all.

    The NYT is not exactly what I would call a tool of right wing propaganda. You'd think they would have included Fox if they could have, wouldn't ya?

    So yeah, the whole Fox angle is looking very doubtful.

    Posted by: Pompeius | Oct 3, 2006 8:33:06 PM


  26. « | 1 2 3 »

Post a comment







Trending


« «The Stewart-Whites of SF: Real Family Values« «