1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Dennis Hastert is a total stroke

Discussion in 'Anything goes' started by Pringle, Oct 5, 2006.

  1. Armchair_QB

    Armchair_QB Well-Known Member

    Given that they would have been showing outrage when the events actually happened that argument wouldn't have a leg to stand on. Both sides had an opportunity to blow this up a few years ago. If Pelosi and Co. raises a stink or Hastert kicks him to the curb, Foley's already gone and isn't harming any more pages.

    Hastart reportedly tried to deal with it in-house at the time and that was apparently fine with the Dems as they kept their mouths shut.
  2. Michael_ Gee

    Michael_ Gee Well-Known Member

    There are several sources on the record saying Hastert knew before last week. There are NO sources on the record saying any individual Democrat did. There are just people saying they had to know because it's difficult to accept the depth of the majority's moral bankruptcy.
    We could waterboard Denny until he coughs up a story. It's legal now.
  3. Gold

    Gold Active Member

    Because if you are a Republican congress member running for reelection, every day Hastert stays as Speaker is another day this is the lead story. The only hope is to have him resign and stop the bleeding.

    Hastert never was a real leader, and know it looks like he is being thrown under the bus by Boehner. Hastert was just a front man for DeLay, and if this stays at the top of the news, people are going to point out that fact.

    The problem is this shows lack of leadership. As bad as this might be for Democrats, it is even worse for Republicans. People expect Democrats to not be organized - Will Rogers said "I don't belong to any organized party, I'm a Democrat" around 1930 and it's just as true today. But Republicans look for leaders and order - when they don't have it, they are like - well, like Democrats.
  4. Point of Order

    Point of Order Active Member

    You get busted misconstruing facts on one count (that Hastert didn't know anything), so you change gears and start tossing out unfounded allegations in a different direction (oh, everyone knew about this). It's intellectually dishonesty at its worst.
  5. D-Backs Hack

    D-Backs Hack Guest

    He could have been confused after seeing the Fox News graphics identifying Foley as a Democrat.
  6. tyler durden 71351

    tyler durden 71351 Active Member

    This just shows what happens when dumb-ass partisanship goes too far.
    "Sure, Foley's a closet case with a taste for young boys. But it could be worse...he could be a Democrat! We don't want this to get out and for a Democrat to get his seat."
    Hastert's going out and playing it up for the knuckle-draggers in his base. But I have every confidence in the world the Democrats will find a way to fuck up this situation. Can't we just start a party for intelligent, moderate adults?
  7. hondo

    hondo Well-Known Member

    Some observations....

    1. When I wondered on another post why Barney Frank and Gerry Studds had not resigned (indeed, stayed on to get re-elected) and why Tip O'Neil, the speaker at the time, didn't resign, I was told that Republicans would be held to higher standards because they're the party of the religious right and high-minded morals, and therefore, are bigger hypocrites. Ever stop to think that Foley resigned quickly and Hastert may follow (and that the Washington Times and conservative groups are calling for Hastert's head quicker than moveon.org) because the Republicans do have higher standards and hold their leaders to it? Bob Bauman, a Republican congressman from Maryland, was found to have had relations with a page in the 1970s, and was drummed out by the party.

    On the other hand, the Democrats have done never done anything to curtail or punish the sexual excesses and conduct of Studds, Frank, Ted Kennedy and yes, Bill Clinton.

    2. If Mark Foley had been a Democrat and admitted to being gay, I have no doubt the party would embrace him and lash out against anyone from the other side who would seek to judge him. But are Democrats piling on the Foley situation because they are actually homophobic or hate Republicans? Is being gay okay only if you're liberal.

    3. So far, we only know that Mark Foley used the internet, emails and instant messages to send, yes, highly inappropriate matter to pages. At least, to the best of our knowledge, he's only have cyber-sex. As opposed to Bill Clinton, who had real sex with a female intern that would have gotten him fired from any corporation in America had the exact same conduct occurred between a boss and a female employee.

    Or do Democrats give him a pass because unlike Foley, Clinton actually got lucky?
  8. Ben_Hecht

    Ben_Hecht Active Member

    Foley needs to be isolated from rank-and-file society, pending rehabilitation. Doing that to teenagers, in
    a subordinate position . . . what trash.

    And HE WAS CONSIDERED FOR FLORIDA'S SENATE NOMINATION . . . with numerous insiders
    knowing he swung from the other side.

    Can't make it up.
  9. WazzuGrad00

    WazzuGrad00 Guest

    Dennis Hastert should resign because he's not good at his job.

    When he found out about this problem in 2003, he should have leaned on Foley to not seek re-election in 2004. The district is solidly Republican, so the GOP wouldn't have faced a problem not having an incumbent.

    If Hastert were able to properly use the influence of his office, this problem would never have come to light.
  10. Flying Headbutt

    Flying Headbutt Moderator Staff Member

    Hondo, for one, it appears as if more than just cyber sex happened. We don't know for sure, but there is some smoke coming from that direction.

    And two, I'm going to toss out a couple of theories about why Dems seem to always get through scandals like this better. I'm not saying it's anything close to a legitimate excuse for getting away with bad behavior, but that it could explain why. First off, the GOP loves to remind people that they're the party of virtuousness and morality. That they're the only party you can trust to keep the highest of ethical behaviors. Since this country loves exposing a hypocrite more than anything, anytime someone with an (R) attached to their name messes up, it's going to get play.

    In addition, remember who is electing these people. Studds and Frank are liberal democrats from liberal districts, voted in by liberals who are more apt to forgive and accept bad behavior and alternative lifestyles. Republican legislators generally come from more conservative districts made up of constituents who don't see things the same way those who live in a district represented by Studds or Frank would. If either of those two for instance had been from central Pa. or from Florida or whatever, their careers would have ended come the next election at the latest. Likewise if Foley came from Massachusetts or Rhode Island (like Teddy's son) or something like that, and was simply a gay man and not a pedophile, he'd still have a career in elected government.
  11. Pringle

    Pringle Active Member

    No one can take you seriously when you misrepresent what happened that severely.
  12. Gold

    Gold Active Member

    1. The Washington Times and conservatives are calling for Hastert's ouster because they want the Republicans to keep control of the House. It ain't morality, it's politics. Like I said, it wasn't like Hastert was a real leader, he was just a puppet with a pleasant face for DeLay.

    2. Bauman was thrown out of office for soliticiting sex from an underage male prostitute, but there is no word that he was a page. As the following from Wikipedia shows, Bauman presented himself as an upright moral sort of fellow who was supported by the Moral Majority.


    3. Your second point causes me to ask what type of cheese would you like with your whine.

    4. Why is it different for Republicans? Because the Republicans are the party of morality. They are against the idea of gay marriage (so am I, although I have no problems with civil unions) and are seeking political advantage from this. The Republicans would never, never tolerate this gay misbehavior. They are morally superior to the Democrats, if I were to believe you and Rush Limbaugh.

    5. If Monica Lewinsky had charged sexual harrassment, your point would be spot on. She did no such thing. Yes, Bill Clinton was wrong. Yes, Bill Clinton had a zipper problem. But the American people, knowing that, voted for him twice and the Democrats GAINED seats in 1998 while impeachment proceedings were being considered. It was significant that the Republican-majority House didn't vote on impeachment before the election. I have always said the difference between John F. Kennedy and Bill Clinton is that JFK was with Marilyn Monroe and Clinton was with Monica Lewinsky, a clear downward trend of the attraction of political power.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page