Monday, October 2, 2006

THE FOLLOWING IS THE IM OF MARK FOLEY WITH A 15 YEAR OLD PAGE. IT'S PRETTY GRAPHIC, SO BEWARE. CREEP. Maf54 (7:25:14 PM): hey Auto response from Xxxxxxxxx (7:25:14 PM): scrounging for food...brb Maf54 (7:25:25 PM): ok Maf54 (7:25:35 PM): kep scrounging Xxxxxxxxx (7:31:51 PM): boo Maf54 (7:32:13 PM): bo dude Xxxxxxxxx (7:32:17 PM): lol Xxxxxxxxx (7:32:26 PM): whered ya go this afternoon Maf54 (7:33:39 PM): i am in pensecola...had to catch a plane Xxxxxxxxx (7:33:47 PM): oh well thats fun Maf54 (7:34:04 PM): indeed Xxxxxxxxx (7:34:14 PM): what are you doing in pensecola Maf54 (7:34:21 PM): now in my hotel room Xxxxxxxxx (7:34:39 PM): well ..like why did you go there Maf54 (7:35:02 PM): for the campaign Xxxxxxxxx (7:35:29 PM): have you officialy announced yt Maf54 (7:35:45 PM): not yet Xxxxxxxxx (7:36:06 PM): cool cool... Maf54 (7:37:27 PM): how my favorite young stud doing Xxxxxxxxx (7:37:46 PM): tired and sore Xxxxxxxxx (7:37:52 PM): i didnt no waltzing could make you sore Maf54 (7:38:04 PM): from what Xxxxxxxxx (7:38:34 PM): what do you mean from what Xxxxxxxxx (7:38:42 PM): from waltzing...im sore from waltzing Maf54 (7:39:32 PM): tahts good Maf54 (7:39:32 PM): you need a massage Maf54 signed off at 7:39:37 PM. Maf54 signed on at 7:40:35 PM. Xxxxxxxxx (7:40:44 PM): got kicked off? Maf54 (7:41:24 PM): must have Xxxxxxxxx (7:41:57 PM): ugh tomorrow i have the first day of lacrosse practice Maf54 (7:42:27 PM): love to watch that Maf54 (7:42:33 PM): those great legs running Xxxxxxxxx (7:42:38 PM): haha...they arent great Xxxxxxxxx (7:42:45 PM): thats why we have conditioning Xxxxxxxxx (7:42:56 PM): 2 days running....3 days lifting Xxxxxxxxx (7:43:11 PM): every week Xxxxxxxxx (7:43:14 PM): until the end of march Maf54 (7:43:27 PM): well dont ruin my mental picture Xxxxxxxxx (7:43:32 PM): oh lol...sorry Maf54 (7:43:54 PM): nice Maf54 (7:43:54 PM): youll be way hot then Xxxxxxxxx (7:44:01 PM): haha...hopefully Maf54 (7:44:22 PM): better be Maf54 (7:46:01 PM): well I better let you go do oyur thing Xxxxxxxxx (7:46:07 PM): oh ok Xxxxxxxxx (7:46:11 PM): have fun campaigning Xxxxxxxxx (7:46:17 PM): or however you spell it Xxxxxxxxx (7:46:18 PM): lol Xxxxxxxxx (7:46:25 PM): ill see ya in a couple of weeks Maf54 (7:46:33 PM): did any girl give you a haand job this weekend Xxxxxxxxx (7:46:38 PM): lol no Xxxxxxxxx (7:46:40 PM): im single right now Xxxxxxxxx (7:46:57 PM): my last gf and i broke up a few weeks agi Maf54 (7:47:11 PM): are you Maf54 (7:47:11 PM): good so your getting horny Xxxxxxxxx (7:47:29 PM): lol...a bit Maf54 (7:48:00 PM): did you spank it this weekend yourself Xxxxxxxxx (7:48:04 PM): no Xxxxxxxxx (7:48:16 PM): been too tired and too busy Maf54 (7:48:33 PM): wow... Maf54 (7:48:34 PM): i am never to busy haha Xxxxxxxxx (7:48:51 PM): haha Maf54 (7:50:02 PM): or tired..helps me sleep Xxxxxxxxx (7:50:15 PM): thats true Xxxxxxxxx (7:50:36 PM): havent been having a problem with sleep though.. i just walk in the door and collapse well at least this weekend Maf54 (7:50:56 PM): i am sure Xxxxxxxxx (7:50:57 PM): i dont do it very often normally though Maf54 (7:51:11 PM): why not Maf54 (7:51:22 PM): at your age seems like it would be daily Xxxxxxxxx (7:51:57 PM): not me Xxxxxxxxx (7:52:01 PM): im not a horn dog Xxxxxxxxx (7:52:07 PM): maybe 2 or 3 times a week Maf54 (7:52:20 PM): thats a good number Maf54 (7:52:27 PM): in the shower Xxxxxxxxx (7:52:36 PM): actually usually i dont do it in the shower Xxxxxxxxx (7:52:42 PM): just cause i shower in the morning Xxxxxxxxx (7:52:47 PM): and quickly Maf54 (7:52:50 PM): in the bed Xxxxxxxxx (7:52:59 PM): i get up at 530 and am outta the house by 610 Xxxxxxxxx (7:53:03 PM): eh ya Maf54 (7:53:24 PM): on your back Xxxxxxxxx (7:53:30 PM): no face down Maf54 (7:53:32 PM): love details Xxxxxxxxx (7:53:34 PM): lol Xxxxxxxxx (7:53:36 PM): i see that Xxxxxxxxx (7:53:37 PM): lol Maf54 (7:53:39 PM): really Maf54 (7:53:54 PM): do you really do it face down Xxxxxxxxx (7:54:03 PM): ya Maf54 (7:54:13 PM): kneeling Xxxxxxxxx (7:54:31 PM): well i dont use my hand...i use the bed itself Maf54 (7:54:31 PM): where do you unload it Xxxxxxxxx (7:54:36 PM): towel Maf54 (7:54:43 PM): really Maf54 (7:55:02 PM): completely naked? Xxxxxxxxx (7:55:12 PM): well ya Maf54 (7:55:21 PM): very nice Xxxxxxxxx (7:55:24 PM): lol Maf54 (7:55:51 PM): cute butt bouncing in the air Xxxxxxxxx (7:56:00 PM): haha Xxxxxxxxx (7:56:05 PM): well ive never watched mysle Xxxxxxxxx (7:56:08 PM): but ya i guess Maf54 (7:56:18 PM): i am sure not Maf54 (7:56:22 PM): hmmm Maf54 (7:56:30 PM): great visual Maf54 (7:56:39 PM): i may try that Xxxxxxxxx (7:56:43 PM): it works Maf54 (7:56:51 PM): hmm Maf54 (7:56:57 PM): sound inetersting Maf54 (7:57:05 PM): i always use lotion and the hand Maf54 (7:57:10 PM): but who knows Xxxxxxxxx (7:57:24 PM): i dont use lotion...takes too much time to clean up Xxxxxxxxx (7:57:37 PM): with a towel you can just wipe off....and go Maf54 (7:57:38 PM): lol Maf54 (7:57:45 PM): where do you throw the towel Xxxxxxxxx (7:57:48 PM): but you cant work it too hard....or its not good Xxxxxxxxx (7:57:51 PM): in the laundry Maf54 (7:58:16 PM): just kinda slow rubbing Xxxxxxxxx (7:58:23 PM): ya.... Xxxxxxxxx (7:58:32 PM): or youll rub yourslef raw Maf54 (7:58:37 PM): well I have aa totally stiff wood now Xxxxxxxxx (7:58:40 PM): cause the towell isnt very soft Maf54 (7:58:44 PM): i bet..taht would hurt Xxxxxxxxx (7:58:50 PM): but you cn find something softer than a towell i guess Maf54 (7:58:59 PM): but it must feel great spirting on the towel Xxxxxxxxx (7:59:06 PM): ya Maf54 (7:59:29 PM): wow Maf54 (7:59:48 PM): is your little guy limp...or growing Xxxxxxxxx (7:59:54 PM): eh growing Maf54 (8:00:00 PM): hmm Maf54 (8:00:12 PM): so you got a stiff one now Xxxxxxxxx (8:00:19 PM): not that fast Xxxxxxxxx (8:00:20 PM): hey Xxxxxxxxx (8:00:32 PM): so you have a fetich Maf54 (8:00:32 PM): hey what Xxxxxxxxx (8:00:40 PM): fetish** Maf54 (8:00:43 PM): like Maf54 (8:00:53 PM): i like steamroom Maf54 (8:01:04 PM): whats yours Xxxxxxxxx (8:01:09 PM): its kinda weird Xxxxxxxxx (8:01:14 PM): lol Maf54 (8:01:21 PM): i am hard as a rock..so tell me when your reaches rock Xxxxxxxxx (8:01:23 PM): i have a cast fetish Maf54 (8:01:27 PM): well tell me Maf54 (8:01:32 PM): cast Xxxxxxxxx (8:01:44 PM): ya like...plaster cast Maf54 (8:01:49 PM): ok..so what happens Maf54 (8:01:58 PM): how does that turn you in Xxxxxxxxx (8:02:02 PM): i dont know Xxxxxxxxx (8:02:04 PM): it just does Xxxxxxxxx (8:02:08 PM): ive never had one Xxxxxxxxx (8:02:16 PM): but people that have them turn me on Xxxxxxxxx (8:02:27 PM): and if i had one it would probably turn me on Xxxxxxxxx (8:02:29 PM): beats me Xxxxxxxxx (8:02:32 PM): its kinda weird Xxxxxxxxx (8:02:50 PM): but along with that i like the whole catholic girl look....thats our schools uniform Maf54 (8:03:02 PM): ha thats wild Xxxxxxxxx (8:03:14 PM): ya but now im hard Maf54 (8:03:32 PM): me 2 Maf54 (8:03:42 PM): cast got you going Maf54 (8:03:47 PM): what you wearing Xxxxxxxxx (8:04:04 PM): normal clothes Xxxxxxxxx (8:04:09 PM): tshirt and shorts Maf54 (8:04:17 PM): um so a big buldge Xxxxxxxxx (8:04:35 PM): ya Maf54 (8:04:45 PM): um Maf54 (8:04:58 PM): love to slip them off of you Xxxxxxxxx (8:05:08 PM): haha Maf54 (8:05:53 PM): and gram the one eyed snake Maf54 (8:06:13 PM): grab Xxxxxxxxx (8:06:53 PM): not tonight...dont get to excited Maf54 (8:07:12 PM): well your hard Xxxxxxxxx (8:07:45 PM): that is true Maf54 (8:08:03 PM): and a little horny Xxxxxxxxx (8:08:11 PM): and also tru Maf54 (8:08:31 PM): get a ruler and measure it for me Xxxxxxxxx (8:08:38 PM): ive already told you that Maf54 (8:08:47 PM): tell me again Xxxxxxxxx (8:08:49 PM): 7 and 1/2 Maf54 (8:09:04 PM): ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmm Maf54 (8:09:08 PM): beautiful Xxxxxxxxx (8:09:38 PM): lol Maf54 (8:09:44 PM): thats a great size Xxxxxxxxx (8:10:00 PM): thank you Maf54 (8:10:22 PM): still stiff Xxxxxxxxx (8:10:28 PM): ya Maf54 (8:10:40 PM): take it out Xxxxxxxxx (8:10:54 PM): brb...my mom is yelling Maf54 (8:11:06 PM): ok Xxxxxxxxx (8:14:02 PM): back Maf54 (8:14:37 PM): cool hope se didnt see any thing Xxxxxxxxx (8:14:54 PM): no no Xxxxxxxxx (8:14:59 PM): she is computer dumb though Xxxxxxxxx (8:15:01 PM): it makes me so mad Maf54 (8:15:04 PM): good Maf54 (8:15:08 PM): haha Maf54 (8:15:11 PM): why Xxxxxxxxx (8:15:23 PM): cause she cant do anything Maf54 (8:15:31 PM): oh well Xxxxxxxxx (8:15:41 PM): she couldnt figure out how to download a file from an email and open it Maf54 (8:15:53 PM): haha Xxxxxxxxx (8:16:14 PM): and she only does it like a million times a day Xxxxxxxxx (8:16:16 PM): oh well Xxxxxxxxx (8:16:18 PM): whatever Xxxxxxxxx (8:16:53 PM): well i better go finish my hw...i just found out from a friend that i have to finish reading and notating a book for AP english Maf54 signed off at 8:17:43 PM. 1:55:42 PM    comment []

WHILE YOUR REELING OVER THE NEWS OUT OF PENNSYLVANIA - THAT AMISH SCHOOL SLAUGHTER OF GIRLS - AND STILL SHAKEN OVER THE E-MAILS AND OTHER ACTIVITIES OF CONGRESSMAN MARK FOLEY WITH CONGRESSIONAL PAGES, FEEL SECURE THAT IN TEXAS A TEACHER OF HIGH CALIBER WAS CANNED ... FOR EXPOSING CHILDREN TO NUDITY. AT A MUSEUM. IN AN APPROVED FIELD TRIP. WITH FOUR OTHER TEACHERS PRESENT. DID SOMEONE SAY BIZZARRO WORLD? Home | Newswire | About Us | Donate | Sign-Up | Archives Monday, October 02, 2006 Headlines Printer Friendly Version E-Mail This Article Published on Monday, October 2, 2006 by the New York Times Museum Field Trip Deemed Too Revealing by Ralph Blumenthal FRISCO, Texas - [base "]Keep the [OE]Art[base '] in [OE]Smart[base '] and [OE]Heart,[base '] [per thou] Sydney McGee had posted on her Web site at Wilma Fisher Elementary School in this moneyed boomtown that is gobbling up the farm fields north of Dallas. Sydney McGee, a teacher in Frisco, Tex., led fifth graders through European and contemporary galleries of the Dallas Museum of Art last April. (Michael Stravato for The New York Times) But Ms. McGee, 51, a popular art teacher with 28 years in the classroom, is out of a job after leading her fifth-grade classes last April through the Dallas Museum of Art. One of her students saw nude art in the museum, and after the child[base ']s parent complained, the teacher was suspended. Although the tour had been approved by the principal, and the 89 students were accompanied by 4 other teachers, at least 12 parents and a museum docent, Ms. McGee said, she was called to the principal the next day and [base "]bashed.[per thou] She later received a memorandum in which the principal, Nancy Lawson, wrote: [base "]During a study trip that you planned for fifth graders, students were exposed to nude statues and other nude art representations.[per thou] It cited additional complaints, which Ms. McGee has challenged. The school board suspended her with pay on Sept. 22. In a newsletter e-mailed to parents this week, the principal and Rick Reedy, superintendent of the Frisco Independent School District, said that Ms. McGee had been denied transfer to another school in the district, that her annual contract would not be renewed and that a replacement had been interviewed. The episode has dumbfounded and exasperated many in and out of this mushrooming exurb, where nearly two dozen new schools have been built in the last decade and computers outnumber students three to one. A representative of the Texas State Teachers Association, which has sprung to Ms. McGee[base ']s defense, calls it [base "]the first [OE]nudity-in-a-museum case[base '] we have seen.[per thou] [base "]Teachers get in trouble for a variety of reasons,[per thou] said the association[base ']s general counsel, Kevin Lungwitz, [base "]but I[base ']ve never heard of a teacher getting in trouble for taking her kiddoes on an approved trip to an art museum.[per thou] John R. Lane, director of the museum, said he had no information on why Ms. McGee had been disciplined. [base "]I think you can walk into the Dallas Museum of Art and see nothing that would cause concern,[per thou] Mr. Lane said. Over the past decade, more than half a million students, including about a thousand from other Frisco schools, have toured the museum[base ']s collection of 26,000 works spanning 5,000 years, he said, [base "]without a single complaint.[per thou] One school recently did cancel a scheduled visit, he said. He did not have its name. The uproar has swamped Frisco school switchboards and prompted some Dallas-area television stations to broadcast images of statues from the museum with areas of the anatomy blacked out. Ms. Lawson and Mr. Reedy did not return calls. A spokeswoman for the school district referred questions to the school board[base ']s lawyer, Randy Gibbs. Mr. Gibbs said, [base "]there was a parent who complained, relating the complaint of a child,[per thou] but he said he did not know details. In the May 18 memorandum to Ms. McGee, Ms. Lawson faulted her for not displaying enough student art and for [base "]wearing flip-flops[per thou] to work; Ms. McGee said she was wearing Via Spiga brand sandals. In citing the students[base '] exposure to nude art, Ms. Lawson also said [base "]time was not used wisely for learning during the trip,[per thou] adding that parents and teachers had complained and that Ms. McGee should have toured the route by herself first. But Ms. McGee said she did exactly that. In the latest of several statements, the district contended that the trip had been poorly planned. But Mr. Gibbs, the district[base ']s lawyer, acknowledged that Ms. Lawson had approved it. [base "]This is not about a field trip to a museum,[per thou] the principal and superintendent told parents in their e-mail message Wednesday, citing [base "]performance concerns[per thou] and other criticisms of Ms. McGee[base ']s work, which she disputes. [base "]The timing of circumstances has allowed the teacher to wave that banner and it has played well in the media,[per thou] they wrote. They took issue with Ms. McGee[base ']s planning of the outing. [base "]No teacher[base ']s job status, however, would be jeopardized based on students[base '] incidental viewing of nude art,[per thou] they wrote. Ms. McGee and her lawyer, Rogge Dunn, who are exploring legal action, say that her past job evaluations had been consistently superior until the museum trip and only turned negative afterward. They have copies of evaluations that bear out the assertion. Retracing her route this week through the museum[base ']s European and contemporary galleries, Ms. McGee passed the marble torso of a Greek youth from a funerary relief, circa 330 B.C.; its label reads, [base "]his nude body has the radiant purity of an athlete in his prime.[per thou] She passed sculptor Auguste Rodin[base ']s tormented [base "]Shade;[per thou] Aristide Maillol[base ']s [base "]Flora,[per thou] with her clingy sheer garment; and Jean Arp[base ']s [base "]Star in a Dream.[per thou] None, Ms. McGee said, seemed offensive. [base "]This is very painful and getting more so,[per thou] she said, her eyes moistening. [base "]I[base ']m so into art. I look at it for its value, what each civilization has left behind.[per thou] School officials have not named the child who complained or any particular artwork at issue, although Ms. McGee said her puzzlement was compounded when Ms. Lawson referred at times to [base "]an abstract nude sculpture.[per thou] Ms. McGee, a fifth-generation Texan who has a grown daughter, won a monthly teacher award in 2004 from a local newspaper. She said the loss of her $57,600-a-year job could jeopardize her mortgage and compound her health problems, including a heart ailment. Some parents have come to Ms. McGee[base ']s defense. Joan Grande said her 11-year-old daughter, Olivia, attended the museum tour. [base "]She enjoyed the day very much,[per thou] Ms. Grande said. [base "]She did mention some nude art but she didn[base ']t make a big deal of it and neither did I.[per thou] She said that if Ms. McGee[base ']s job ratings were high before the incident, [base "]something isn[base ']t right[per thou] about the suspension. Another parent, Maijken Kozcara, said Ms. McGee had taught her children effectively. [base "]I thought she was the greatest,[per thou] Ms. Kozcara said. But [base "]knowing Texas, the way things work here[per thou] she said of the teacher[base ']s suspension, [base "]I wasn[base ']t really amazed. I was like, [OE]Yeah, right.[base '] [per thou] Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company ### Printer Friendly Version E-Mail This Article FAIR USE NOTICE This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Common Dreams NewsCenter 12:28:37 PM    comment []

Martin Lewis: Bush photographed praising Foley as child-sex S.W.A.T. team leader!!!. July 27, 2006 - George W. Bush - with his hand on a page (of a bill he's signing) looks in the direction of Rep. Mark Foley (grey suit, blue tie, bulge in his pocket - his Blackberry) The White House is moving at full steam to distance the President from Mark Foley. The last thing it needs now is there to be a soundbite from the President praising Mark Foley - or a photograph with George Bush and Mark Foley at the White House within a few feet of each other. Especially if either occurred in the last few months - at a time when the entire Republican House leadership was aware that they probably had a child sex predator in their midst - certainly someone whose actions warranted an investigation. And especially if the Presidential praise is for Mark Foley's leadership on the hot topic of protecting children from pedophiles and predators who use the internet to hit on underage kids. Gosh darn! Too late... That's what the photo above shows. Exactly 9Â[product] weeks ago (you can't make up a loaded number like that!) - on Thursday July 27th 2006. At the White House. George W. Bush invited the Congress members that HE and his White House team regarded as the leaders on the topic of protecting kids from sexual predators to attend the signing of a bill on the topic. (The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006.) Of course the White House doesn't just invite any old House Representatives to White House ceremonies without consulting the GOP House leadership on who is appropriate to invite. Otherwise every Republican House member would want to attend and get that useful campaign photo with the President. So prior to the event taking place - the suitability of Mark Foley attending the event was discussed by the White House and the GOP leadership - which at that point had known about Foley's penchant for emailing young boys for several months. And the GOP leadership verdict? Invite Mark Foley! And what did Bush say? Well after he had praised and said how much he appreciated the leadership (who had turned a blind eye to Foley's sexually suggestive emails to an underage teenage boy) - he praised House members in attendance (including Foley) as being a "S.W.A.T. team for kids" (I can't make this stuff up!) And THEN - with Mark Foley nodding his solemn approval - Bush said the following: "You know, having someone harm your child is one of the worst nightmares a parent could face." "Protecting our children is our solemn responsibility. It's what we must do. When a child's life or innocence is taken it is a terrible loss -- it's an act of unforgivable cruelty. Our society has a duty to protect our children from exploitation and danger." "By enacting this law we're sending a clear message across the country: those who prey on our children will be caught, prosecuted and punished to the fullest extent of the law." "The bill I sign today will make it harder for sex predators to reach our children on the Internet. Some sex predators use this technology to make contact with potential victims." No kidding. But a little too late for some youngsters Mr. President.... A little too late. If "protecting our children is our solemn responsibility" then what does it say that the GOP leadership put the protection of a GOP House seat ahead of protecting children? For shame Mr. President. For shame... I will expect your explicit condemnation of every member of the GOP House leadership who knew about the Mark Foley emails and didn't act to protect children. It's time to for YOU to act like a S.W.A.T team now. Starting with the GOP House leadership. And the reaction from the White House so far? Smooth-talker Dan Bartlett offered the following: "We learned when the American people learned. The president, the entire administration was just as surprised as everybody else.âo¨âo¨" Err... except of course for the GOP House leadership. But maybe the White House WILL act. After all Bartlett promised: "We're going to get to the bottom of this" Well that's something that Mark Foley will appreciate... [The Huffington Post | Full Blog Feed] 11:27:59 AM    comment []

Joshuah Bearman: Foley Versus Clinton. "It's vile. It's more sad than anything else, to see someone with such potential throw it all down the drain because of a sexual addiction." -- Mark Foley, R-West Palm Beach, September 12, 1998, referring to Bill Clinton in the St. Petersburg Times. Another one-two punch of karmic irony for Republicans. First, there was James West, Republican Mayor of Spokane, Washington, noted for vigorously opposing gay rights measures until he was caught exchanging messages with someone he thought was a 17-year-old boy on a gay website. Then Virginia Representative Edward Schrock, a staunch Republican backed by the Christian Coalition, left a message on a gay phone dating service looking for a partner to "get together with a guy from time to time just to -- just to play... get naked, play, and see what happens." Nothing wrong with that, unless by day you are a howling, vitriolic advocate for a Constitutional ban on gay marriage. Unlike Schrock, Foley voted moderately on gay rights issues. Unfortunately for Foley, when he got caught IM'ing a teenage Congressional page, he also happened to be Co-chairman of the Missing and Exploited Children Caucus. And the House leadership knew and protected Foley. Which we all know is what this scandal is really about. It's as if there's some kind of secret Republican Inappropriate Appointment Committee. Let's put the closeted cruiser in charge of gay bashing! Head of the sex offender watchdog committee is a borderline sex offender? Check. Or make that, write him a check! Today's Republicans don't believe in accountability. Foxes in the henhouse is the rule, rather than the exception. Five-and-a-half years, and they're drunk with power. It's a tragic corruption of the party's cause. And they have no one to blame but themselves. They run all the branches, a majority of the governorships, and have the mouthpieces of talk radio and the biggest cable news outfit to distribute their talking points. Not to mention an enfeebled and confused Democratic party to dominate. Even with an open playing field, they're scoring goals on themselves left and right. Come election day, maybe a few Democrats will show up to claim the forfeit. [The Huffington Post | Full Blog Feed] 11:25:45 AM    comment []

Foley Scandal is a Page-Turner. It’s just keeps getting juicier. So the FBI is going to investigate Foley and his trail of sexy emails to young boys. Five weeks before national elections, Republicans in Congress (who thought the worst thing they had to worry about was the debacle in Iraq) are now in Full Panic Mode over the Foley scandal, trying to contain the damage amid charges that top Republicans covered-up Foley’s misdeeds. (It seems too good to be true: a family values scandal that helps Democrats.) Specifically, House Speaker Dennis Hastert, perhaps the world’s most overweight ex-wrestler (who had a family-values scandal of his own a while back when it was revealed he’d had an affair), was told many months ago by another Republican member of Congress, Tom Reynolds, about Foley’s indiscretions. Today, of course, months later, Hastert is “outraged and disgusted” by Foley. Of course. But as the scandal unfolds, and as its ripples spread, it could seriously damage the GOP’s already precarious position in the vote next month. Foley, by the way, resigned instantly on Friday after ABC News told him they knew about some of the sexually explicit emails he’d send. According to the Washington Post, Foley’s staff tried a bargain, asking ABC not to reveal the contents of the emails if Foley would resign. Didn’t work. And after ABC posted some of the emails to one boy, several other former pages (that is, former junior Capitol Hill assistants) wrote to ABC with stories of their own about Foley. Expect this story to snowball for weeks. Five weeks, to be exact. ¬[sgl dagger] [Rolling Stone National Affairs Daily] 11:02:12 AM    comment []

Bill Scher: The Midterm Dynamic (or, What Mark Halperin Doesn't Understand About America). Bill Scher is the author of the new book, Wait! Don't Move To Canada! -- A Stay-and-Fight Strategy To Win Back America Republicans have done everything possible in the last two years to sabotage their chances of keeping Congress. They lost control of Iraq. They lost New Orleans altogether. They believed Social Security privatization was a political winner. They rallied around the corrupt Tom DeLay. They failed to pass ethics reform after the Jack Abramoff scandal splattered over them. They attacked each other on immigration. They decided attacking Bin Laden was "not a top priority." They even kept quiet when they learned of a predator of House pages in their caucus. Yet they could still win again. Pretty much all of the above fiascoes have dragged down the GOP in the polls, even in the area of national security. But Republicans are betting that -- despite their own problems with national security -- the stereotype of Dems being soft on national security remains pervasive. In turn, they're trying to make this November the third consecutive federal election to turn on national security. Bob Woodward's belated realizations and the Mark Foley scandal have recently gotten in the way of the GOP effort to refocus media attention on terrorism. But as LiberalOasis has noted previously, Democrats have chosen not to "nationalize" this election around a set of core principles. That leaves the GOP as the only party trying to nationalize the election, which may give them the upper hand despite their poor poll numbers. Unplanned events, like the Foley scandal, might derail that strategy. So could a shift in the minds of voters about how strong Republicans really are on national security, with Iraq a mess and Bin Laden still free. But that would mean Dems just got lucky, not that they did anything to fundamentally change the frame of the national conversation. Which means they would still have work to do if they want to keep winning elections. ABC's Mark Halperin offers a similar analysis in the NY Times yesterday, but as he genuflects towards Karl Rove and the conservative base, he gets some key points wrong. As Talk Left noted (link via The Sideshow), Halperin myopically contends that Democrats are in a lose-lose position: that articulating a principled national message would be a political loser, and so would playing the "centrist" game of "blurring ... differences with Republicans on highly charged issues." I agree that cravenly blurring differences is no way for a party to build trust with voters. But why can't Dems speak from "their hearts," according to Halperin? ...because the United States remains in many ways a fundamentally conservative nation. Polls consistently indicate that there are more staunchly conservative Americans than liberal ones. Republicans ... have the advantage of being able to proudly announce what they really think. They can go on the offense. This is a flat misinterpretation of the poll data. As detailed in Wait! Don't Move To Canada!, while polls do show that more Americans call themselves conservative than liberal, Halperin leaves out that: 1) Both camps are minorities, one-third of Americans say they're conservatives, one-fifth liberal. Self-described "moderates" are the plurality. 2) Even that only assesses the popularity of the ideological labels, not liberal and conservative ideas. 3) Vast majorities support our government to be responsible for guaranteeing health insurance for all, protecting the environment, eliminating poverty and regulating big corporations. Significant majorities support Roe v. Wade and equality for gays. Two-thirds back a balanced budget over tax cuts. (This isn't in the book, but 57% want a timetable for troop withdrawal from Iraq.) When you add up the numbers, it's clear that liberals, moderates and even some self-described conservatives generally support liberal principles to guide our government. Sure, there is apprehension about the liberal label, thanks to the decades-long conservative smear job and the lack of a liberal defense of our own word. But not about liberal ideas. Halperin argues that if Democrats said more clearly what they believed on Iraq, health care, taxes and gays, it would "eat into their support among centrist voters" and backfire. He doesn't offer evidence to support the assertion. In my reading of the data, there isn't any. That is not to say it's a simple task for Democrats to overtly embrace liberal principles and positions. For example, a package of liberal domestic and foreign policy ideas would need to be placed in an easily understood, consistently articulated frame, so busy voters have a good grasp of the overarching direction Democrats want to take our government. This is particularly true of foreign policy, as voters have little sense of how a Democratic approach would be superior to the current Republican one. That's a big reason why the GOP's rerunning of the national security scarebook remains politically potent. (Fortunately, Wait! Don't Move To Canada! doesn't skimp on the framing recommendations.) But Halperin contends that it is an impossible task for Democrats to be true to their core principles, because America is fundamentally conservative. He's simply wrong. Cross-posted at LiberalOasis. [The Huffington Post | Full Blog Feed] 11:01:30 AM    comment []

Russell Shaw: Mark and Mel, The "I Have A Drinking Problem" Defense Doesn't Wash. Now it turns out that disgraced former Congressman Mark Foley- who has expressed the hots for male Congressional pages- is entering alcohol rehab. And one Mel Gibson, he of the anti-Semitic rants and anti-Semitic movies, is also seeking treatment for a drinking problem. I could call the roll of public and private sector crooks who have also used this "I was drunk" defense to assert they weren't fully in control of themselves when they commited their transgressions. I have news for you, Mark, Mel, and the others. Alcohol only accentuates your natural tendencies. So don't blame the sauce on the fact that you've made an ass of yourself in your public life. Instead, admit your core problem. Maybe, Mark, your problem has been that you were living a lie, and by virtue of your stance on public issues, you were living the life of a hypocrite as well. There's nothing wrong with being gay. But alcohol is no excuse. I mean, although I don't drink much, as a heterosexual male I've had a wine buzz and then have had online flights of fancy about women real or imagined. But I have come to learn that alcohol was just a vehicle, not the cause. Mark, if you want to find a role model for how you should have handled yourself, look at your former Congressional colleague Barney Frank. He's out, proud, and not conflicted. Or drunk. And Mel, few are saying you don't have a right to make the kind of movies you do. But I have a feeling your thoughts about Jews were probably learned at an early age from your Dad. It seems you have not been all that inclined to receive information that would contravene those views. What's alcohol got to do with it? What's a booze buzz but a second-hand emotion? [The Huffington Post | Full Blog Feed] 10:57:13 AM    comment []

Brent Budowsky: Conservative Christian Leaders Should Speak Out STRONGLY on Republican Page Scandal. It is morally imperative for major conservative Christian leaders (who for three days have been strangely silent) to speak out strongly, clearly and immediately about the Republican Congressional page abuse scandal. Moms and Dads send their kids to Washington as Pages, and Congressional leaders have a sacred trust and sacred duty to protect them. Men and women of faith from all religions and all points of view, expect standards of morality and integrity from officials in Washington. There is now a moral breakdown in Republican Washington. From ethics scandals, to political scandals, to failures to tell the truth about Iraq that are being revelealed every hour and every day on the news, there has been an extreme breakdown of moral bearing in Republican Washington. Lord Acton was right; power corrupts. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were right: our democracy needs checks and balances. What is happening is the inevitable result of power that is concentrated, disprespect that spreads like a cancer, and a disregard for the rule of law that has now infected even the protection of young men and women who serve as pages. There is synergy between failure to tell the truth about Iraq, failure to protect the pages, failure to respect the law, and a culture of coverup that now permeates Republican Washington. The Congressional Page Board should have been fully and immediately notified and they should have fully and immediately notified the FBI and Justice Department. The fact that Democratic and independent voices on the Page Board were excluded was shameful and grounds for firing. The fact that the endangerment of the pages continued while this was treated for months, possibly years, as a Republican damage control operation may turn out to be grounds for prosecution. The fact that one of the first Republicans notified was the head of the Republican Campaign Committee was shameful and dishonoable. The fact that the GOP Campaign Committee Chairman and the House Speaker cannot get their story straight is not moral or credible. All House Republican leaders should publicly and immediately disclose whether they have been advised by counsel of potential criminal liability. They should give sworn testimony, immediately, under oath. They must either publicly certify that they have not been told of potential criminal liability, or they should step down as leaders until they full story is told and a full exoneration is given by the appropriate authorities. Above all, this is a moral crisis for conservative Christian leaders. They should put their basic Christian values ahead of their Republicanism. They should put their honorable conservatism above partisan excuses for a national shame. They should put the sacred duty of Republican leaders of Congress towards children who are sent to Washington by Moms and Dads, with a sacred trust to protect them, ahead of any and all political considerations. We can only hope and pray they do. It will be a day of shame for them, if they do not and it will be a moment of truth and integrity to watch whether they fulfill their truest responsibilities in this sordid episode. I pray they do. The world is watching. [The Huffington Post | Full Blog Feed] 10:31:36 AM    comment []

Foley And GOP Values. Rep. Mark Foley's colleagues will have a hard time proving their commitment to moral values come November. By John Nichols. [TomPaine.com] 9:09:50 AM    comment []

Published on Saturday, September 30, 2006 by CommonDreams.org How George Bush Admitted His War Crimes by Richard W. Behan It was brilliantly deceptive, trumping even his orchestrated dishonesty in leading us to war. Buried in the 94 pages of the Military Commissions Act of 2006-the "detainee act" or the "torture bill"-the Bush Administration tacitly admits it has committed war crimes. There is no question war crimes have been committed. Corporal Charles Graner, Private First Class Lyndie England, and several of their teammates are serving time, for mistreating prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad. At the time these soldiers were tried and sentenced many people felt the culpability must extend above the ranks of enlisted personnel, up some distance into the chain-of-command, perhaps to the top. Many still do. There are two pairs of dots to be connected. One is a pair of small dots, the other two are huge. On December 28, 2001, a memo to President Bush from his Office of Legal Counsel made two claims: the US court system had no jurisdiction regarding the detainees at Guantanamo, and the Geneva Conventions did not apply to them. Acting on this advice, on February 7, 2002 President Bush suspended Common Article 3 of those conventions-which, among other things, prohibits torture. Two years later, thanks to CBS' 60 Minutes and the New Yorker magazine, the prisoner abuses at Abu Ghraib came to light. Connect those dots. These are the small ones. Subsequent lawsuits addressing the detainee issue were considered and resolved by the Supreme Court. Rasul v. Bush found the US courts did have jurisdiction over the detainees. Hamdi v. Rumsfeld said detainees have a right to contest their detention: they are entitled to habeas corpus protections. Hamdan v. Rumsfeld tested the military tribunals President Bush created to bring the detainees to justice. The Supreme Court found the tribunals in violation of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, and their existence to be illegal, absent a basis in federal statute. The decision was handed down June 29, 2006. Hamdan v. Rumsfeld put on display the Bush Administration's guilt in committing war crimes. This is one of the huge dots. It will be connected to another one shortly. The Bush Administration wasted no time drafting a law to legalize the military "commissions," as they came to be called. Senators McCain, Warner, and Graham initially and vigorously opposed it-and then caved in. A "compromise" was worked out in Vice President Cheney's office. Trivial tweaks. The law signed by the President precludes federal courts from any jurisdiction whatsoever, in direct contradiction to the Supreme Court's finding. It denies habeas corpus protections, also in direct contradiction. And it prohibits explicitly the detainees from claiming rights under the Geneva Conventions. Here is the language that does so: No person may invoke the Geneva Conventions, or any protocols thereto, in any habeas or civil action or proceeding to which the United States, or a current or former officer, employee, member of the Armed Services, or other agent of the United States, is a party, as a source of rights in any court of the United States or its States or territories. This means that no detainee can bring suit for any violation of the Geneva Conventions, and this is the other huge dot. The Bush Administration already stands accused by the Supreme Court of violating Common Article 3, but the Administration wrote a law, and bulldozed it through a compliant Congress, to render prosecution impossible. This also means the US simply is not bound by the Geneva Conventions. If detainees cannot claim rights under them the Conventions are moot. The Military Commissions Act of 2006 is retroactive. It shall ".take effect as of November 26, 1997, as if enacted.[on that date]." Nothing the Bush Administration has done can be called into question. Why would the Bush people write these several requirements into a law? Only if they are guilty of committing war crimes and know they will face prosecution. Though ingeniously obscured, this is a de facto admission of guilt. The Military Commissions Act of 2006 is mostly smokescreen. The law's primary purpose is to immunize the Bush Administration, which explains the Administration's frantic anxiety to have it passed. The thrust of the bill, relating to detainee trials, is hardly a matter of top priority: the detainees have been languishing for years. Elizabeth Holtzman saw through the smokescreen in a recent essay in the Chicago Sun-Times, "Bush Seeks Immunity for Violating War Crimes Act." Not many other commentators have noticed. This new law shields the Bush Administration from their mistreatment of prisoners, but that issue is truly a marginal one. Still to be confronted is the illegality of the Iraq war writ large: sold to the American people on conscious lies and prosecuted at horrific expense in human lives and treasure. Crimes against humanity are involved here. The Military Commissions Act was created by desperate people terrified of prosecution. Imagine George W. Bush taking the stand in The Hague, following in the footsteps of Slobodan Milosevic. Imagine Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Condoleezza Rice imprisoned. Imagine. Richard W. Behan's last book was Plundered Promise: Capitalism, Politics, and the Fate of the Federal Lands (Island Press, 2001). He is currently working on a more broadly rendered critique, To Provide Against Invasions: Corporate Dominion and America's Derelict Democracy. He can be reached by email at rwbehan@rockisland.com. 7:36:17 AM    comment []

© Copyright 2006 Patricia Thurston.