Drudge on Foley: "This wasn't coerced," "the kid was having fun with this"
SUMMARY: On his radio show, Matt Drudge stated that the former congressional page with whom former Rep. Mark Foley allegedly engaged in sexually explicit communications was "having fun with this" because the teenager used "[t]hese LOLs throughout the entire conversation, these 'laugh out louds.' "
On the October 2 edition of his nationally syndicated radio program, Internet gossip Matt Drudge defended former Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL), stating that Foley's alleged sexually explicit communication with a minor through an instant-messenger program "wasn't coerced." Drudge went on to say that "the kid was having fun with this" because the conversation included "[t]hese LOLs throughout the entire conversation, these 'laugh out louds.' "
As the weblog Crooks and Liars noted, Drudge went so far as to accuse the underage former pages of "egging the Congressman on" during their conversations, claiming that "[t]hese kids were playing Foley for everything he was worth." Drudge twice referred to the former pages as "beasts."
Drudge also suggested that Foley was not guilty of any criminal offense by pointing out that the age of consent is 16 in Washington, D.C. As the Los Angeles Times reported, the FBI is investigating whether Foley "violated federal law by sending sexually explicit instant messages to at least one teenager who had served as a congressional page." As Reuters noted, Foley, the former co-chairman of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children, was "author of the key sexual predator provisions of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, which President Bush signed in July."
Earlier in the broadcast, Drudge had sympathized with Foley's reported alcohol problems and asked whether Democrats would be "cruel" to Foley: "[I]f we're learning, in fact, that Foley did go into alcohol rehab ... then he was a sick man when he did all this. How can they be cruel on that? How can [House Democratic Leader Nancy] Pelosi [D-CA] be cruel on that if he was sick?"
Drudge also falsely claimed that The New York Times "put four Foley stories on their front page" on October 2. In fact, the Times ran only one story, written by Rachel L. Swarns, about Foley on its October 2 front page, headlined "Former Pages Describe Foley As Caring Ally." The first half of the story painted Foley solely as a friend to congressional pages, even portraying his efforts to stay in touch with former pages as a positive trait. Drudge's remark on the Times came despite the fact that his website has prominently featured the Foley story since it first came to light on September 29.
From the October 1 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Drudge Report:
DRUDGE: Good evening, John. How are you? Did you -- have you heard The New York Times has put four Foley stories on their front page tomorrow?
JOHN FUND (Wall Street Journal columnist): They have created their own fast news day out of thin air.
DRUDGE: Wow. Well, this is it. This is the big one. This is the October surprise.
[...]
FUND: This, I have to tell you: I have never in my life seen a question of "Change the subject, forget everything else we said, we now have to focus on one congressman, one set of emails. That takes the place of symbolism of everything else."
DRUDGE: Well, it's Plan B. It was -- or actually Plan C, at this point. I mean, you can't even remember -- it's like there wasn't even an election prior to the Foley break on Friday. What was anybody even talking about? What were the Democrats talking about? Nothing, and that was the problem. They were really -- it was -- their boat was just out there not getting any traction. And this is a gift from the heavens. They're gonna overplay their hand, as they usually do. And now if we're learning, in fact, that Foley did go into alcohol rehab, well, that's gonna -- well, OK, then he was a sick man when he did all this. How can they be cruel on that? How can Pelosi be cruel on that if he was sick? So.
FUND: All I can say -- wait. I will predict there will be another shoe to drop. There'll be another congressman with some other indiscretions, some other problem, and that will be revealed by Election Day. Because this is all about, forget the major issues. Congress has to be cleaned out. The only way you can do that is to change party control.
[...]
CALLER: Hey, Drudge. The reason, you know, Foley is -- has four stories on the front page, basically, in my opinion, is just to put another black mark on the GOP in November. But that's not really why -- you know, my point in why I called. I'm actually sorry to hear that you think Foley was encouraged and entrapped. I actually thought you were gonna touch on this a little bit with a caller you had that --
DRUDGE: Well, I don't know if I said that. I'm just saying from reading these instant messages, this wasn't coerced. I mean, this wasn't somebody -- the kid was having fun with this. These LOLs throughout the entire conversation, these "laugh out louds."
CALLER: Well, this is not an isolated incident. I mean, this kind of behavior among lawmakers and congressman, it's nothing new.
[...]
DRUDGE: Well, let me ask you, [caller], let me ask you, do you think we will see Foley actually having contact with people as opposed to instant messages? Do you think in the next couple days, hours, minutes, we're gonna learn that he actually did have physical contact with these pages?
CALLER: I don't know. I don't have a crystal ball here in front of me.
DRUDGE: Well, because I think then it becomes much more of a serious situation than instant messages. I just do. I mean, that's just where I'm sitting. Maybe I'm out of it. Maybe the instant message does carry the weight of personal contact. That you can be damaged and scarred from instant messages. That it can be traumatizing. That it can be so extremely dangerous what you write in instant messages to 16- and 17-year-olds.
[...]
DRUDGE: This is gonna present a dilemma for the Dems, who are gonna try to make this an evil case. When if it was a sick man? And they have to have compassion on the sick man, right? Well, we'll see.
[...]
DRUDGE: Do you know the age of consent in Washington, D.C.?
CALLER: Yeah, it's 16. But that doesn't mean I want a 52-year-old trying to seduce a 16-year-old running the country.
DRUDGE: Well, but -- but does it state in the law that you have to be a certain age to have sex with a 16-year-old? I mean, that's the question here. Is it 16 on 16?
CALLER: No, it doesn't.
DRUDGE: OK.
From Crooks and Liars:
DRUDGE: And if anything, these kids are less innocent, these 16- and 17-year-old beasts. And I've seen what they're doing on YouTube, and I've seen what they're doing all over the Internet. Oh yeah. And you just have to tune into any part of their pop culture. You're not going to tell me these are innocent babies. Have you read the transcripts that ABC posted going into the weekend of these instant messages, back and forth? The kids are egging the congressman on! The kids are trying to get this out of him. We haven't got the whole story on this.
[...]
DRUDGE: You could say, "Well, Drudge, it's abuse of power. This is a congressman abusing these impressionable, young 17-year-old beasts. Talking about their sex lives with a grown man, on the Internet." Because you have to remember, those of us who have seen some of the transcripts of these nasty instant messages. This was two ways, ladies and gentlemen. These kids were playing Foley for everything he was worth. Oh yeah. Oh, I haven't -- you know, they were talking about how many times they've masturbated, and oh, they didn't do it with their girlfriends this weekend. All this -- all these things and these innocent children. And this poor congressman sitting there typing about, "Oh, am I going to get any?" You know?
Typical colonial thinking, ---turn the victim into the persecutor. Even if the teenager were to think he was clever enough to “play” Foley, and got an ego boost from it, (I know I did a few dumb things similar when I was a teenager) the fact remains that the emotional maturity is not there, and it is the adult, as in a 50 something year old man who preaches about values, to guide and discourage such behavior (if in fact it was the behavior.)
These pigs have no boundaries. Poor Foley was the victim of the little vixen page (insert MAJOR EYEROLLING).
What is the collective excuse? There were meetings a year ago about the page problem, as in more than one page, not a page problem, as in one manipulating promiscuous page.
what sort of e-mail exchanges might be found on DRUDGE'S computer.
He might just be trying out a future defense of his own.
FUND: This, I have to tell you: I have never in my life seen a question of "Change the subject, forget everything else we said, we now have to focus on one congressman, one set of emails. That takes the place of symbolism of everything else."
Uh, was Fund asleep during the three year Lewinsky thing?
As for Drudge, does anybody outside of the jerk circle radical right take this guy seriously?
Katrina refugees, 9/11 widows, congressional pages--The GOP. Party of blame the victim.
Ugh.
amazing how they didn't have these excuses when clinton was involved with someone in her twenties. and monica did in fact initiate the affair with clinton. obviously one of these kids was playing along. but the original story that broke was about a kid who did not appreciate the messages, who thought them out of line. i'm sure there's more to be revealed. the right gets all squishy soft when it comes to their own. look at all the sympathy for poor little drug addict rush, who just happened to be playing in weekend golf tournaments when he was supposed to be in such agony from back pain that he had to be gulping all those pills. another case of do what i say, not what i do. by his own words, rush should have been locked up or deported.
When the evidence is piled to the moon against you, blame the victims.
It doesn't matter. I'll bet the boy who had sex with that blonde teacher had a whale of a time, but she still went to jail.
I think this scandal has the troglodytes scared sh*tless...Karl Rove is pulling out all the stops. No excuse is too far-fetched...no defense too ridiculous.
What will Little ANN-thrax Coulrer say?
"Oh, if I were Foley, I'd have the page killed..JUST KIDDING"....
Does Drudge have children? Does Rush Limbaugh have children?
Drudge also suggested that Foley was not guilty of any criminal offense by pointing out that the age of consent is 16 in Washington, D.C.
A message I read had Foley in Pensacola, Florida, when he was talking to the teen, so the age of consent in D.C. is totally irrelevant.
In the IM exchange I read at abcnews.com, Foley was in Pensacola and the page was somewhere else. It doesn't matter if one or both of them were in DC, or in any other place that has the age of consent at age 16. The fact of the matter is (and hopefully Rusty will correct me if I am wrong), Foley helped to write laws to protect children from internet predators. By Foley's IM's, he is a predator. Since internet communications span the globe, the age of consent for such conversations by IM is 18 - NOT 16.
But let's not forget this issue: Foley is a member and representative of a political party that has a disdain for homosexuals, looks down upon anything with a sexual bent to it (unless it's missionary position sex), claims to have higher moral standards and answers to a higher moral entity. But to hypocrites, higher moral standards are just for getting votes. Foley knew what he was doing was wrong - if not technically illegal (which I believe it is, see above), then morally wrong.
I don't care who you are or how you spin it: If you're a 52 year old man, you have NO RIGHT to molest (yes, this is molestation) a 16 year old via IM, email, telephone, etc. It is wrong for a 52 year old man to have sexually explicit conversations with a 16 year old - whether male or female.
Whether the 16 year old egged him on is of no consequence. The fact is, Foley knew better. He shouldn't have done it - and now he needs to pay the price.
CSL
it does not matter where either of them were. I was pointing how how Druge tried to spin it by saying the age of consent in DC is 16. It is makes no difference. Foley is a sexual predator.
are in agreement, my friend. I just wanted to point out that the fact that DC has a consent of 16 is a non-sequitor. Drudge failed to point out other predator laws which protect children/teenagers against people like Foley. Worse yet is the fact that Foley chaired the committee to protect children. Even worse yet is that people in the Republican party will dismiss this issue entirely. They will spin it to their advantage, which in itself, is DISGUSTING. Worthless Republican bastards.
CSL
This is an odd topic for Drudge to talk on considering that his gayness is so widely talked about. Does Drudge think these pages are just "Teases" that asked for it? Has Drudge been "Teased" by young 10th grade high school boys himself? Are those boys on the wrsetling team just wearing those tight oufits to drive Drudge crazy? These questions need to be asked and answered.
bring up something a democrat did 10 years ago and say "See? They do it too!" Never mind you don't see it in the here and now.
waiting fot the part where Drudge makes it obvious he's being sarcastic.
As much as the Cons, with all their talk of personal responsibility, blame the victims or anybody else, this is just flagrant.
The alcoholic dodge seems to be pretty trendy, too. I like that Drudge points out that "attacking" a sick man is going to be a dilemma for the Dems, as if checking into rehab erases all previous actions.
Recall a recent incident involving a man from a prominent Dem famioy driving into a barrier recently who didn't get much sympathy from the right.
Ah, but they don't even pretend to care about sick people, soall systems are go.
I remember all those "pundits" talking about how the whole Lewinsky thing was Monica's fault. She was there, going along with it, tempting him, bringing "pepperoni" pizza and cigars to see him. Bill was just a victim of some lustful, young vixen, isn't that what they said then?
The thing that sickens me about the GOP more than their lying, their lust for power, their lack of concern about what their policies are doing to destroy the lives of thousands, no, millions of people is their utter hypocrisy. How in God's name (and they do it in God's name) do these people manage to live with themselves?
Monica was legal!.
If this guy were a Dem they'd be calling for him to be crucified.
As abrasive as he is (intentionally so), Druge is not "blaming the victims". Drudge is saying that there are no victims, which would be correct for the most part. This, if it constitutes a crime at all, constitutes a victimless crime. No one is to blame because no one did anything wrong, potential legal technicalities aside.
The was, of course, a complaint and that actions that led to that complaint may have constituted sexual harassment, but sexual harassment is not a crime, it is a tort. If there was intentional harassment of the page that complained that would have been reason enough for a resignation but certainly not something that the FBI should waste resources investigation.
However, from what has been shown there was no intentional harassment. Rather, one page reported discomfort with the tone of some interactions and the matter was resolved posthaste. The IMs that later surfaced do show the intent behind the more innocuous communications that first spurred the complaint but they themselves do not constitute sexual harassment. Rather, they represent consensual sexually charged conversations.
He is also right that it is idiotic to dwell on what is essentially a non-issue. It was idiotic when it was Clinton and it is idiotic now. The fact is that politicians are insane. They keep doing the exact same things over and over again believing that the outcome will be different and thy waste trillions of dollars rehashing the same old things. In this case the issue is that someone likes to have sex. Whoop-ti-do. It was a non-issue when it was Clinton and it is a non-issue now. But, it does serve as a dice smokescreen to distract the media from the real issues
I'm not sure if you are spinning, being deliberatly obtuse or are just clinically insane!!!!
The E-Mails and IM's Foley sent were sent to MINORS!!!
He was having sexually charged conversations with people WHO WERE UNDERAGED. His role in congress was to watch out for people who did this sort of thing and make sure they were prosecuted.
There are bad political scandals all over the world, what is so incredible in this one is that a party which has spent so many years trumpeting the fact that they are the ones with family values have just been exposed as callous, cynical hypocrits who thought more about keeping a safe seat in government and the money brought in by a sexual predator of under-aged boys than it did about the protection of the minor in their care, because that is what the pages in congress are.
The only question that has too be asked is who knew and when. Those who knew and said nothing MUST RESIGN and immediatly, there is no other action that can be deemed correct. If l was a Democrat running in November against one of those named in this the only advert l would run from now is a picture of Foley, a picture of my opponent and just ask a simple question: "Do you want a man who lied and protected a sexual predator of young boys representing you?"
Not too hard to say which way that would go.
Fictions are to law what fraud is to trade.
I am neither spinning nor being obtuse. Rather, I am refusing to buy into the fiction being presented. The fiction is that is magic fairy comes down from the magical fairy world and magically grants mental competence to people on midnight of their 18th birthday in the timezone of their current residence.
It is quite possible for a person over the age of 18 to lack the mental faculties required for actual informed consent and it is quite possible for a person under the age of 18 to have such faculties.
In this case, the persons were Congressional Pages. They had been found competent to serve Congress in its capacity as a lawmaking body, the duties that they perform on a daily basis in service to Congress require a far greater level of personal responsibility and individual competence than simply consenting to a sex act does. To claim that they are competent to perform integral functions in the day-to-day operations of Congress but that they are not actually competent to have some raunchy conversations is absurd. Reducing individuals who are, arguably, the most important people in D.C., who keep Washington running by their own efforts, to the status of incompetent victims on the basis of age alone does a disservice to them and to young people everywhere.
if you think that a 16 year old indeed has the proper emotional base to make an intelligent sexual decision. Currently, if you're a 52 year old man, it's illegal to make sexual advances on a 16 year old. It's the law. And, if I'm not mistaken, Foley was the head of a caucus entrusted with passing laws to PROTECT children, but in the same capacity, he was MOLESTING them.
If you feel that a 16 year old has the ability to consent to sexual activity, feel free to join NAMBLA and work to have the law overturned. In the mean time, internet relations between adults and minors are illegal and punishable by law.
Even an exceptionally bright 16 year old is still considered a minor. A 52 year old Congressman should know better. Being a member of the GOP, we know he knows better, especially because of the "family values" this jerk campaigned on. Get real. This guy is a turd. He deserves prison, not rehab.
CSL
"If there was intentional harassment of the page that complained that would have been reason enough for a resignation but certainly not something that the FBI should waste resources investigation. "
I'm sure you were equally concerned about he 80 million dollars your bosses spent investigating bill clinton. You're a fraud, and a pervert. go away.
Dude. It's A CRIME, hello? This is a 54 year old man, emailing 16 year old boys, about masturbation techniques. That's OK with you??
That's PEDOPHILIA, that's a CRIME.
Don't be an idiot.
pointed out to me that pedophilia is prepubescent, however it still makes Foley a sexual predator if not a pedophile.
Pedophilia is a psycological condition wheby one is primarilary attracted to prepubescent individuals. Such an attraction is not illegal nor should it be. One cannot legislate thought. Acting on such desires, on the other hand, is usually a crime and usually should be.
Ephebophilia denote a primary attraction to postpubescent teenagers and would be the most accurate classification for the Senator, although the classification of Ephebophilia amongst the list of paraphillias is controversial because it is not maladaptive. A preferance for youthful postpubescent sex partners is reproductivly beneficial and would generally be selested for. Such a preference would naturally carry over to homosexuals and bisexuals, as well.
The classification of Senator Foley as a "sexual predator" as also tennuous. The term implies the use of force or violence. In this case there is no accusation of violence.
Citizen J your statements where they are not false, are trueisms. This implies the use of circular logic. Yes, they are crimes but law cannot be used as a standard of morality. Something cannot be bad just because it is a crime. Rather, one must first weigh the law to decide if its ends are just. This is certianly true in this case. Protecting those who are vulnerable is a just end. However, one must also decide if the application of the law in this case would be just. To that the answer is nay. I'm not going to defend the Senator. He is, most certainly, an idiot. However, there was no malice in his actions, nor was their predatation. There was simply idiocy. Does this bout of idiocy in his personal live prevent him from doing his job? Maybe. A single miscalculation is not evidence of general incompetence but it certian does raise questions. The alcoholism is far more concerning to me than the apparent promiscuity.
Has Senator Foley's idiocy harmed anyone other than himself? Objectivly, no. We could get all emotional about age differences but just think about something for a moment. Congress felt theat these people were mature, competent, and responsible enough to be put in charge of tasks that are vital to the lawmaking process. If they are emotionally mature enough to make responsible decisions in service to Congress, decisions that are vital to the functioning of our highest lawmaking body, then they are certainly emotionally mature enough to make comparatively trivial sexual decisions. If they aren't then we have far bigger problems than a single senator.
You make a persuasive argument. However I'd like to point out that a page in the House of Reps is nothing more than a glorified messenger. I don't mean to knock messengers, but the job that these pages have been entrusted with is nothing more than delivering papers, grabbing lunch for staff, etc. There is nothing in their jobs that put them at the forefront of the legislative process.
As for your argument regarding pre- and post-pubescent children, I agree. However, FOLEY himself helped to bring about laws to protect children (even teenagers) from internet "sexual predators". These are the very laws which he broke. He used his power to molest these boys. I use the term "molest" because the root of the word means "to bother". He was bothering those boys. Yes, the boys also engaged in conversation in return. However, Foley is an adult and a member of our country's legislative body. He knows better. Foley's actions are more than just idiocy. He used his position to take advantage. He broke laws in the process of molesting these boys. Then, the leadership covered it up.
Sorry, but a 52 year old man asking a 16 year old boy how big his penis is and how he masturbates is a little more than just friendly. How would you feel if a 52 year old man were asking your 16 year old son how big his penis is? How would you feel if a 52 year old man was asking your 16 year old daughter how big her breasts are?
From the party of "family values" and "high moral standards", this is pure hypocrisy. You're rationalizing Foley's molestation of 16 year old boys. Nice.
CSL
Appeals to emotion are fallacies for a reason. In this case it isn't even a useful fallacy. I cannot answer that question with complete certainty because I have never had any 16-year-old children (and am far too young to have had any.) I must say that I would attempt to respect their decisions. I hope that I would have equiped them with the tools required to preerly weigh their options and make the decision that they feel is best.
However, I would also support a brutal response if Mr. Foley attempted to take advantage of anyone who lacked intellectual or emotional maturity no matter what their physical age.
There is no evidence that the Pages in question lacked such maturity and all of the evidence in the world that they possed it. Some may call them messengers and recordkeepers, but those who control the flow of information naturally wield a great deal of power. The fact is that their jobs are important and they could really screw things up if they did not acct responsibily or if they choose to act maliciously. In particular, the importance of accurate recordkeeping cannot be denied, a slip of the pen could easily change the result of a vote. Likewise, politics is all about networking and communicating with others. The messages must flow but, a tthe same time, they must not flow to the wrong ears. The potential for a Page to act as a policial spy or saboteur cannot be ignored nor can the potential damage they can do simply by altering or misremembering an important message.
Current arbitrary cronological standards do not protect impressionable 16-year-olds so much as they fail to protect impressionable 24-year-olds. Either way you look at it the law is disriminatory. Either it prevents responsible teenagers from entering into sexual relationships outside of wedlock (it is possible to marry at 13 or even younger in the United States if you shop around and most statutory rape laws have a marriage exception) or it fails to protect irresponsible adults from molestation.
Also, I must point out that they could have gotten married (assuming that both were single), thus exempting them from all statutory rape laws. Now, we don't live in the Victorian era any more, sex talk is an important part of most courtships and the internet plays a vital role in communication. Now, as Drudge pointed out, it would have been perfectly legal from them to have a quicky in a Congressional broom closet, it would have been perfectly legal for them to talk about sex in person, and it would have been perfectly legal for them to run off to Massachusetts and get hitched. So, this being said, why it is so wrong for such a courtship to take via IM instead of over the tellephone, face to face, or though the US postal service?
Watching scumbags like Drudge and Limbaugh try to defend Mark Foley is a dream come true. Even the holier-than-thou Sean Hannity tried to paint the entire scandal as a Democratic dirty trick due to it's timing. If that's the case, thank you God (or Bill Clinton!) for giving them the balls to fight back!
Drudge's tactic of blaming the 16 yr old boy is yet another example of just how low he and the right-wing will stoop to cover it's own ass. I give Bay Buchanon alot of credit yesterday on CNN when she refused to defend Foley, Hastert, or anyone else and called for the immediate removal of anyone involved in the cover-up.
How totally typical of the scum of the right.
"She wuz askin' fer it! Lookit how she wuz dressed!"
The right has no shame, and zero morality. They tell their base of morons whatever they want to hear, all for power.
It's ALWAYS been about POWER, and never about anything but that.
The Republican leadership has completely dropped the ball on this issue. This is an outrage and a disgrace that Foley is being defended by anybody. The Republicans have misplayed this badly, instead of throwing the bum out and letting the law handle the situation they have chosen to defend the indefensible.
This scandal needs to come to the full light of the nation and anyone with prior knowledge of this nonsense should be voted out. Enough is enough.
The Republican mouthpieces that have been defending Foley need to seriously get a reality check. Drudge, Snow, Limbaugh, this means you. Malkin at least correctly blogged about this disgraceful situation.
THE TWINS DID IT!!! THEY WON THE DIVISION!!!
Thank you very much, Kansas City.
My office is very flexible about being able to listen to the game. I hope yours is too, if you're stuck at work.
I left work to watch the game, it didn't work out today but it's been a great season. We will get even tomorrow. Have to stay positive, just like with my GOP! (the chumps). Besides, I want a shot at jeter2's team.
has sex with an adult woman who brought her presidential kneepads and Drudge was financed by Scaife to bring him and the Democratic party and the presidency to their collective knees, and Drudge saw that as good for the country. Foley, who fortunately for himself was not a democrat or everybody would be after him in "unanimous consent" now claims to have an alcohol problem so per Drudge it's cruel to expect him to be prosecuted if he violated his own federal felony statute that he helped author while he was supposedly in such a drunken stupor? Please. The real obscenity is that anybody cares one whit about what Drudge thinks or writes (which are likely two totally different things 90% of the time).
Sorry, but alcohol doesn't make 52 year old men want to have sex with 16 year old boys. This whole rehab thing is just a ploy to distract you from the real issue: Foley is a pedophile. His alcoholism doesn't have a thing to do with his sexual proclivities - and it sure as hell shouldn't get him off the hook for molesting a 16 year old.
CSL
"Our co-champs tonight, Bill-O, who explained the Mark Foley scandal to his room full of idiots, thusly, “There have been rumors about Foley‘s homosexuality for years, it wasn‘t an issue at all until now.”
And Matt Drudge, who described the victims in this case as “these 16 and 17-year-old beasts” and sarcastically called them “innocent” at least three times. “The kids,” he added, “Are trying to get this out of him. We haven‘t got the whole story on this.”
No actually, you pinheads, we have. This isn‘t about Foley being gay. It‘s not about what the kids did. It‘s about an adult, male or female straight or gay taking sexual advantage of children, and other adults protecting that adult. And now, in you two imbeciles, it‘s two other adults trying to protect the political agenda at the expense of the child.
Bill O‘Reilly and Matt Drudge, today‘s “Worst Persons in the World.”
That's pretty funny. I met someone once who went to college with Drudge, and they thought it was pretty sick the way he used to claim that his date rape victims were always "asking for it" and "begging him to drug them and do them" and such, so I guess it's no surprise Matt would be saying the same thing re: Foley's targets
What I have been hearing from all of these right wing "ers" is that our poor children have to be protected from everything they see on tv, read in a book, see on the internet, see in a movie, etc., etc .. but, let one (of many) Republicans get caught doing something they rail against and then it IS THE FAULT OF THE OTHER PARTY, KID, GUY,WOMAN, WHOEVER .. IT'S NEVER THEIRS. I still think the best excuse I have ever heard out of a Republican is when, during the Lewinsky mess, Henry Hyde was questioned about the fact that he had played a part in breaking up a family while having an affair with a married woman was a "YOUTHFUL INDISCRETION".... for pete's sake! The man was in his 50's during that so-called indiscretion! These guys remind me of .. no .. are a bunch of dirty old men.