Tuesday, October 03, 2006

Hastert's Resignation would be like giving Osama a blumpkin

Mark Foley has been criticized for several inappropriate contacts with pages. The story broke with a series of emails in which he asked an ex-page to send Foley a picture and engaged in loosely flirtatious prelude. The kid realized what it was a prelude to and was none too pleased. When Republicans in the house learned about the emails, they did very little about the subject other than tell Foley not to email this kid any more.

Dennis Hastert is speaker of the house, and he saw the questionable emails. Hastert didn't do anything to Foley but referred the matter to another representative (John Shimkus), who told Foley to lay off. Hastert's come under criticism for his lack of action/potential coverup, and a big part of the Foley debate is now whether Hastert will/should resign. Hastert's responded in an interview with Rush Limbaugh, and Hastert said some ridiculous stuff. Discussing the scandal, he dropped this fascinating analysis:
But, you know, this is a political issue in itself, too, and what we’ve tried to do as the Republican Party is make a better economy, protect this country against terrorism — and we’ve worked at it ever since 9/11, worked with the president on it — and there are some people that try to tear us down. We are the insulation to protect this country, and if they get to me it looks like they could affect our election as well.
So if Hastert's forced to step down, the terrorists have won, is what Hastert's saying here. This is the Republican line - there's an identity between Republican interests and American interests, and all that troubles Republicans threatens America. And so dissent is treason and Democrats are just like Al Qaeda.

Boo, I say!


warm fuzzy said...

boo! BOO!

Anonymous said...

I think this situation is as ridiculous as the next person, but I'm pretty sure what he meant was that if the democrats get to him they can affect the election as well, if you look at the way he framed the statement at the beginning, calling it a political issue. That said, I wouldn't mind seeing him booted out of there.

a cowboy in the seven-days-a-week fight said...

I hope you saw stephen colberts take on foley. foley wasn't flirting, he was just using internet shorthand. horny is actually means happy on reaching new years.

fakir005 said...

This is what Bush says. If you do this Terrorists have won. There is no doubt that Hastert must go because the terrorists in Hastert mind are different then the terrorists in Bush's mind. Hastert is thinking of the congressmen and senators who engage in cyber sex and may be actual sex with young people they come in contact with. These terrorists will ein if Hastert stays.

Norma said...

Listen better. Many people including the FBI saw the e-mails and deemed them not worth investigating. Democrats have nothing on the agenda except to impeach Bush, and for that they need a few more seats. This is not about pedophilia, but about horrifying the Republicans so they won't go to the polls in November. Democrats don't care who has sex with who. Just check out the man-boy love sites. Those guys sure aren't voting for Republicans!

Eric Stewart said...

I thought you might enjoy this item at my blog: A Compendium of Republican Sex Scandals Involving Children

Stevie D. said...

Man, those NeoCons will stand behind each other no matter what. That's some resolve :)

-Stevie D. (lazycomic.blogspot.com)

M. Fearghail said...

Hey, if marriage can mean anything (i.e., two men, two women, a man and a boy, three men and five women, a woman and her cat, a man and his truck, etc.), then why all the moral indignation regarding Foley? If two of the same sex can marry, why can't Foley marry, or court, a boy?

Yes, for you guvrnmnt edikated, socialist types, this is an exaggeration to make a point!

We must draw the line somewhere. If Foley is wrong, and his is, then so is changing the definition of marriage, which is a union of one man and one woman.

Be consistent!

What say you?

Bulldog23A said...

Well, for one thing m. fearghail, no one is asking that it be made legal for anyone to marry an underage boy. We all know that this is just a political game to congress, which is part of the real problem. Hey, if all this political diatribe brings one pervert to justice, then cool. As far as the definition of marriage, you just stay focused on that, the rest of us will get the real problems taken care of.