Ann on Foley: No big deal
"No-Spin Zone" indeed.
Saw Ann Coulter shrug "What's the big deal?" about the ex-Congressman Foley scandal in an uncharacteristically gentle interview by Bill O'Reilly.
Should Dennis Hastert resign, as The Washington Times has demanded? Pshaw, she said. He knew nothing, she insisted.
How did she know that for sure? O'Reilly asked.
Well, she just knew, she said in so many words.
After all, she noted, Foley just asked a young ex-page what he got for his birthday. Well, no, he did much more than that in salacious e-mails, which she ought to know if she resides in the same universe as the rest of us.
Says the Times editorial, in part:
Some Democrats are attempting to make this "a Republican scandal," and they shouldn't; Democrats have contributed more than their share of characters in the tawdry history of congressional sexual scandals. Sexual predators come in all shapes, sizes and partisan hues, in institutions within and without government. When predators are found they must be dealt with, forcefully and swiftly. This time the offender is a Republican, and Republicans can't simply "get ahead" of the scandal by competing to make the most noise in calls for a full investigation. The time for that is long past.
House Speaker Dennis Hastert must do the only right thing, and resign his speakership at once. 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.
Comments (10)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
This Foley business is about one thing:
Two adults having a private conversation about sex.
Is it really anybody else's business?
Posted on October 4, 2006 9:58 AM
It is a well-known (but quietly kept) fact that the "No-Spin Zone" has spun so fast and hard that several years ago it drilled a hole into an alternate universe and sucked zombies like O'Reilly's and Coulter's alter egos from that alternate universe into this one, along with the alter egos of everyone who remembers O'Reilly's and Coulter's existence prior to the inter-universal event caused by the furious spinning of the "No-Spin Zone."
None of these entities really existed in THIS universe before then.
:-)
That was fun! Thanks, Allen, and have a great day!
Posted on October 4, 2006 10:59 AM
Jaycee:
A 16-year-old page is not an adult.
Posted on October 4, 2006 1:35 PM
Yes, he is, Allen. Check the law.
Posted on October 4, 2006 4:45 PM
Jaycee,
what law are you referring to that makes a 16 year old an adult. the issue is that an elected official, who incidentally led the charge against pedophiles on the internet, has been found out to be just that. I'm sure that you led the charge to vilify Clinton during the Lewinsky debacle; why are you being so hypocritical now? Guess when it's a republican who is caught, it's ok, huh?
Posted on October 5, 2006 6:34 AM
mikeg, Foley is only guilty of "talking"..is that a crime to you and the Dems? Who made the Dems responsible for deciding what people can think or what they can say?
Now you're attacking someone because they may be homosexual? That makes you a gay-basher. I thought the Dems were the party of "tolerance," especially when it comes to sexual aberrations. Are you now denouncing all the gay and lesbian groups that have supported the Dems all these years? Will the Dem party take their gay and lesbian contributors list and hunt they folks down and jail them?
At 16 I can move out on my own, buy a car, marry, own a business, and do most things any other adult can (except buy alcohol, cigarettes, etc.)
Foley has not been shown to have DONE anything. Are the Dems now the "thought police" hunting down and persecuting those who have "impure thoughts?"
Posted on October 5, 2006 9:48 AM
According to Drudge, it now appears the explicit IM messages went to an 18 year old. In addition, these same IM messages were a prank cooked up by a page who goaded Foley to send them to other pages which ended up in the hands of Democratic operatives.
Developing......
Posted on October 5, 2006 3:14 PM
The Dems always defended Clinton's scandal as it was only about sex. Is that the same thing here with Foley? Interesting are the distinctions that are being made here.
Posted on October 5, 2006 9:30 PM
The issue is not sex, so much as it is preying on teenagers.
Sixteen or 18 ... what's the difference? What Foley allegedly did is wrong, period.
Any attempt to cover it up is worse without directly addressing the problem is worse.
As for whether Foley was set up ... we'll see.
Still, I don't know if that would make it much different from what NBC is doing with its "To Catch a Predator" series. Those guys are getting arrested.
If I were the parent of a page, I'd be outraged.
I am not the parent of a page and I am outraged.
As for Clinton, he was dead wrong and he lied about it. No argument here.
Posted on October 6, 2006 9:05 AM
"According to Drudge..."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!
Thank you, thank you! A good laugh was just what I needed!
Have a great week,
Posted on October 8, 2006 8:04 PM