Two sets of two-words why the Republicans will most likely now lose in Novermber -- and deservedly so: Mark and Foley, and Cover and Up.
La Shawn Barber is all over it. More from ABC News.
Pathetic.
UPDATE: Michelle Malkin is on it, too. No excuses, no blaming liberals or the MSM. Yep.
UPDATE 2 by Hube at 6:27pm 10/3: Word to the wise: Never listen to liberals when they attempt to take the "moral high ground." Just check out this thread over at DE Liberal. Refreshingly, for the most part, Jason keeps his head on straight regarding the issue. But then there's dimwitty, various anonymi, and tinfoil hat-wearing Nancy Willing who want to ignore the way-too obvious double standard when comparing the Democrat/liberal reaction to Rep. Gerry Studds and Rep. Foley. As Jeff the Baptist points out, Studds actually had an affair with a 17 year old [male] page. He was censured by the House, but he was disdainful of the whole deal. He was later promoted to committee chairs by his [Democrat] peers, and re-elected numerous times!
Amazingly, as I discovered watching a pundit show last night discussing the Foley matter, 16 years old is the age of consent in Washington DC! Legally, Foley -- it seems -- can't be indicted on some sort of "child endangerment" charge. However, Foley himself apparently was instrumental in passing some sort of Internet-based bill (now law) that prohibits the sort of lewd messages he sent to that page. Doh!
The bottom line is that what Foley did is dead wrong. Felix -- and La Shawn Barber and Michelle Malkin -- are 100% correct. There's no excuses. Whether or not 16 is the age of consent in DC is beside the point. (First of all, THAT should be raised. IMMEDIATELY.) I raised the age of consent angle over at DE Liberal to point out what the liberal "defense" talking points would most likely be if Foley were a Democrat. Check it: Foley used his position of POWER to influence and to attempt to engage in a sexual relationship with an underling -- both in position and age. Resigning was the proper course of action.
maybe I'm wrong, but doesn't your arguement lose ground when you link to Malkin?
Posted by: donviti at October 6, 2006 11:39 AMIt's "argument." And the link to Malkin enforces the "no excuses" argument, dimwitty.
Posted by: Hube at October 6, 2006 05:07 PM