by hilzoy
This is becoming very annoying. First, I read some coverage of the Foley story and wonder why no one seems to have said, clearly and succinctly: the problem here is that the leadership left teenagers in their charge at risk for political reasons. Then I click over to firedoglake and discover that Reddhedd has said exactly what I wanted to say. (Damn her eyes!)
Today I read this by Howard Kurtz:
“On Friday afternoon, a strategist for Rep. Mark Foley tried to cut a deal with ABC’s Brian Ross.
The correspondent, who had dozens of instant messages that Foley sent to teenage House pages, had asked to interview the Florida Republican. Foley’s former chief of staff said the congressman was quitting and that Ross could have that information exclusively if he agreed not to publish the raw, sexually explicit messages.
“I said we’re not making any deals,” Ross recalls.”
I immediately wondered whether this strategist was the same former Foley staffer who was now working for Rep. Tom Reynolds, but had come back to advise Foley. A bit of Googling established that it was indeed that staffer, one Kirk Fordham. Hmm, I thought: what to make of this? I hadn’t worked out the answer to that one when life intervened, so I didn’t put it in my last post, and now everyone else has written about it first. (Damn their eyes too!)
So, eager as ever not to be scooped — not even by Gary! — I now present one tiny question I haven’t seen anywhere else — probably because it’s too insignificant for people to bother with, and because I just haven’t looked hard enough to find the multitudes who have written about it. But anyways, here is the tiny toothpick with which I stake my claim to have asked a question I haven’t seen anyone ask about this, namely:
In the story above, Kurtz claims that “on Friday afternoon”, Fordham tried to cut this deal. The ABC story that he was trying to prevent was filed at 3:02pm. The first story, about the “over-friendly” emails (as opposed to the graphic IMs), was filed at 3:06pm the previous day.
This is the first confirmation, to my knowledge, that Fordham was there before the IM story broke. (In the post I linked to above, Glenn Greenwald claims that that fact is in this story, but in fact it’s quite ambiguous about when Fordham showed up, reporting on Saturday that Fordham had “returned to Foley’s side to advise him during the past couple of days.” TPM’s timeline puts Fordham’s appearance on Saturday the 30th, citing the same story.)
Before the IM story broke, of course, only the emails had been made public. Reynolds, of course, had known about these emails for months; here’s how he characterized them in an interview with the Buffalo News, published Sunday the 1st:
“Asked how Alexander characterized the messages, Reynolds said: “I’m not going to get into all that . . . I’m not into a grand jury witness thing here, or whatever.”
Later in the interview, however, Reynolds said: “I was told that a member of the House was communicating with a page and that the page had some discomfort with it.” (…)
Despite his conversation with Alexander, Reynolds said: “I had no idea what was contained in any e-mails.” Asked if Alexander told him anything that would give him reason to contact authorities, Reynolds said: “Not that I could tell.”
Reynolds said Alexander told him that he had spoken with the page’s parents. They didn’t want the matter pursued, he said, “so I thought it had to be pretty well satisfied.”
“I didn’t give this a whole lot of thought when the member who sponsored the page told me he was in contact with the parents of the 16-year-old.”
Nevertheless, he contacted Hastert to alert him. “Despite the fact that I had not seen the e-mails in question, and Mr. Alexander told me that the parents didn’t want the matter pursued, I told the speaker of the conversation Mr. Alexander had with me,” he said. (…)
Reynolds said he didn’t think to bring the issue to the House Ethics Committee after Alexander approached him. But the House voted unanimously on Friday to refer the matter to the ethics panel.”
Nothing set off any alarm bells, according to Reynolds. No reason to inform the House Ethics committee; no reason to “give this a whole lot of thought” once he heard that Rep. Alexander had spoken with the boy’s parents. Nothing there; move right along.
I find it odd that Reynolds would loan out his chief of staff to Foley, at a time when he’s in the middle of a very tough race and working as head of the NRCC in the middle of a very tough election season (and yes, I know that federal workers are not supposed to work on campaigns, but I would find it flatly incredible that a chief of staff would not be involved in both, or that his presence just wouldn’t be missed. And, as John Aravosis notes, it would be nice to know whether he’s advising Foley at the taxpayers’ expense.) I find it especially intriguing that Reynolds would lend out his chief of staff before, not after, the IM story broke. At that time, all that had been made public were the emails — the ones that, according to Reynolds, had failed to raise any red flags before.
It could be that Reynolds is just very generous with his staff’s time. Someone asks him to loan out his chief of staff, and he’s always ready to oblige. It could be that Foley called Reynolds or Fordham after the first story, confessed all, and asked for Fordham’s help. Or it could be that Fordham was dispatched to ensure that Foley resigned and/or to contain the damage. (Since Foley has now confessed to being an alcoholic, he might have been in the middle of a major meltdown.) In this latter case, I can’t really see Reynolds taking this step without consulting with the House leadership.
In any case, it would be nice to know why, exactly, Fordham showed up when there was nothing known to the public that would explain his presence. If the answer is something along the lines of my third hypothesis, it would also be nice to know how Reynolds knew that there was enough to this story that he needed to dispatch his chief of staff, at what had to have been the worst possible time, to deal with it.
I believe that’s Kirk Fordham, not Kirk Cameron.
Yikes. Fixed. What is it with me? It’s not as though I didn’t check stuff, though it now occurs to me that I checked more facts than names.
Sheesh.
Thanks.
“So, eager as ever not to be scooped — not even by Gary!”
Rest assured that, as I previously indicated without saying directly, I have no plans to blog a word about the Foley thing, though possibly stuff about the surrounding political issues might seem notable to me at some point.
Otherwise, I don’t do sex scandals.
This is sufficient indictment of the Republican Congress for me, and there’s no lack of people blogging about Foley.
LITS. Life is too short.
Particularly for me to want to read someone’s IMs about sex, or stuff related to that.
(No, I focus on the important stuff, like getting Woody Allen quotes right, and pointing out internet Flash games.)
“I believe that’s Kirk Fordham, not Kirk Cameron.”
That however, is a hilarious one-liner.
And here I thought it was Russell Kirk…
Well, I could have written James T. Kirk — in which case we’d know that the House Republican Leadership were all aliens, but that humanity would triumph in the end.
This is interesting. (via Gilliard)
“My daughter was in the capital page program.”
I had forgotten. JM went on.
“She had dinner with the congressman.”
This did not compute.
“With Foley? Really?”
“Yeah. He invited two pages to have dinner with him and they invited my daughter and another girl to go with them.”
“These pages were boys?”
“Yeah, but they were too smart to go by themselves, so they took the girls to their dinner with Foley.”
I wonder how many “Pioneer” types had their kids in the page program. I have a feeling that, given trends, there might have been more loyal Republicans in there, since you have to go thru your Congressman to be chosen.
it could be that Fordham was dispatched to ensure that Foley resigned and/or to contain the damage.
I take that as a given.
Since Foley has now confessed to being an alcoholic, he might have been in the middle of a major meltdown.
It’s this willingness to consider all the possibilities and give the benefit of the doubt that’s part of what so many of us respect about your posts, hilzoy.
But, speaking as a cynical, easy-to-disrespect partisan, let me implore you not to fall for that tired old “alcoholism” routine. Criminals and frauds hie themselves to rehab because it’s just about the only place in modern life where a person can successfully fend off press inquiries. Plus, that old demon rum can be blamed as the cause of the behavior that’s generated the press interest.
It would be so sweet if Reynolds were to be defeated in November.
lj, there are indeed more Republican pages, about twice as many as Dems.
No one has actually addressed the question hilzoy asks yet, so I’ll take a stab. I don’t see the second and third options as mutually exclusive. Fordham, after ten years with Foley, was as likely as anyone in the world to have known how bad this could get. He was also one of the most likely people to whom Foley would turn in this kind of crisis.
The intense determination among the House members not to be the one who ends up tagged with the responsibility for this long-term, ongoing cover-up has led each of the men involved to cut the others loose. The delicious irony is that the result — the several immediately clashing accounts, followed by retractions and walkbacks and flat-out revelations of lying — may end up bringing almost all of them down.
One can only hope.
Why Foley Teen Boy Scandal Can Fuel GOP Defeat
What’s the most basic issue that goes back to the days way before there were political parties? Back to prehistoric times? Protecting your family. Protecting your kids. And, if you don’t have kids, protecting kids.
An…
Why Foley Teen Boy Scandal Can Fuel GOP Defeat
What’s the most basic issue that goes back to the days way before there were political parties? Back to prehistoric times? Protecting your family. Protecting your kids. And, if you don’t have kids, protecting kids.
An…
“Criminals and frauds hie themselves to rehab because it’s just about the only place in modern life where a person can successfully fend off press inquiries.”
This is absolutely true, but alcoholism, or at least major abuse, is pretty darned common, as well.
As in so many things, there’s often little reason both things can’t be simultaneously true.
“One can only hope.”
The number of extremist Defenders Of The Republican Faith bloggers who have been bailing just in the past day or two is remarkable; just look at Memeorandum at the moment.
What’s also remarkable is the range of reasons. It’s not just Foley; it’s Iraq, or Frist on the Taliban, or cumulative frustration over lots of stuff.
At least as bloggers go, the only one’s left are going to be the unbelievably rabid super-mad-dogs. (Like this guy.)
Otherwise, look at the headers:
And so on.
Good times.
I think Misha should tell us what he really thinks of the GOP.
“Good times.”
I think Phil Hartmann’s character on NewsRadio said, “Good times, good times.”
Another inconvenient fact for the bonfire
Another former staffer said it was an oft-repeated story around Capitol Hill that Foley’s former chief of staff, Kirk Fordham, would sometimes accompany the congressman to keep him out of trouble.
Someone should tell these pages who are keeping quite because of potential harm to their career that there’s not going to be a Republican party to be currying favor with in a couple more weeks…
“Someone should tell these pages who are keeping quite because of potential harm to their career that there’s not going to be a Republican party to be currying favor with in a couple more weeks…”
And lie to them?
Or is this like the Republicans who for the past ten years have been saying that about the Democrats?
Or are all the pages expected to be dead by ten years from now?
Gary,
I think Ace has already suspended his disbelief in Republicans.
“I guess I’m still on the team. But it’s pretty clear to me that it’s not just the Democrats that don’t get it; it’s a good number of the Republicans too.”
It may take more than this to keep them convinced.
Oh, I’m sure many are just blowing off steam, and will hold their noses on November 7th (two days after my birthday!), but I’m not going to complain about what they’re saying just now.
I’m just enjoying the perfect storm.
Gary, I’m sorry that my little amuse-bouche went by you so quickly that you couldn’t even pick the outlines of it. It wasn’t my best, but given the brevity and the lack of identifying anyone in particular, I don’t think it was so hard to pick up that it was not a serious suggestion.
“…but given the brevity and […] I don’t think it was so hard to pick up that it was not a serious suggestion.”
Yeah, that’s what I usually think, too.
That I’m saying something with dry wit, or a twinkle in my eye, or a wish to affectionately tease, or simply to be informative, or obtain information, is always perfectly clear to me.
Yeah, that’s what I usually think, too.
Which makes it perhaps more imperative to perhaps avoid strawmannish questions? Or at least preface them with ‘On the assumption that you were being serious’ so I could have a chance to say ‘errrr, no, I wasn’t’. Just a suggestion.
Tick tick tick
Despite repeated warning signs going back at least five years, almost nothing was done in Congress to stop Foley’s suspect behavior with pages.
I think Misha should tell us what he really thinks of the GOP.
i think Misha should be monitored by the FBI.
i think Misha should be monitored by the FBI.
That’s it? I think a trip to sunny Gittmo is in order, it’s very nice down there these days I hear.
And so on.
Good times.
They will hold their noses and vote the right way come November 7, cause anything is better than having that Left Coast Liberal Witch and her N*ggers in charge of congress…
it’s very nice down there these days I hear.
mmm.. lemon chicken and cinder blocks near the sea
[posting rules?]
OT – N. Korea Says It Will Conduct Nuke Test
“The U.S. extreme threat of a nuclear war and sanctions and pressure compel the DPRK to conduct a nuclear test, an essential process for bolstering nuclear deterrent, as a corresponding measure for defense,” said the statement, carried by the North’s official Korean Central News Agency.
Wheeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!
[posting rules?]
Indeed. Steward, either ceasefire freeze with comments like that, or you will be asked to leave. Consider this a warning.
This is absolutely true, but alcoholism, or at least major abuse, is pretty darned common, as well.
That it is, but my gut tells me that this isn’t actually what he’s being treated for — or if he is, it’s alcoholism as a facilitator of other urges, rather than alcoholism in its own rights.
Man this popcorn tastes good.
ABC’s Teddy Davis reports: In a radio interview with 700 WLW radio in Cincinnati, House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) placed responsibility for the Foley matter not being handled properly on House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL).
heh.
Rush Limbaugh:
Anarch:
“alcohol as a facilitator of other urges…”
Yes, but to put too fine a point on it, I suspect alcohol in this case is a fortifier of the courage to succumb to other urges.
By which I mean the alcohol Foley consumed at the evening meal and after. The alcohol he consumed at lunch was a poultice to numb the guilt from whatever was succumbed to the previous evening.
And we’re not even counting the drinks he needed before giving speeches or chairing committee meetings on the issue of protecting children from predators.
Of course, Foley might have thought of himself as Nixon going to China on that issue.
I think Nixon needed a couple of stiff ones on Air Force One before bussing Mao on the cheek.
And, according to Aravosis:
Yes, but to put too fine a point on it, I suspect alcohol in this case is a fortifier of the courage to succumb to other urges.
This might be the former bartender speaking, but isn’t that what alcohol’s for?
my heart’s not in this. Maybe if it WERE Kirk Cameron…
It would be strangely appropriate if the Democratic strategy memo that did the trick, after all this time, were: “sit quietly. Hope opponents get caught with live boy or dead girl.”
Jesus Rush, let’s see here:
(a) it’s the democrats fault
(b) Foley was set up
(c) but I’m not defending Foley
(d) it was a hit by the Dems and the Media
(e) Dems and the media don’t care about the kid
(f) there’s no problem with what Foley did
(g) Dems defend this sort of thing all the time
Katherine: my heart is only a little in it — if it looks otherwise, it’s because I’m trying to sort out the details. However:
I have believed for ages, and still believe, that one of the biggest problems we have is that large chunks of the electorate do not understand enough about, say, why deficits are bad, or Constitutional law, to recognize scandals having to do with those things. If you don’t understand that stuff well, your eyes glaze over, and it’s incredibly easy to thinks: well, this side says this, and that side says that; feh; I’m going back to watching football (or whatever.)
The thing about sex scandals, I think, is not that everyone thinks sex matters more than the Constitution, but that everyone understands them well enough to call bullsh*t. If you hear someone saying: our tax cuts will actually raise revenues, you might think: well, she’s an economist; who knows? It could be true. Whereas if you hear someone say: It was actually just fine for this Congressman to be asking teenagers to measure their penises, you are deeply unlikely to say: well, he’s a psychologist; who am I to judge?
Ugh: (h) Teh Ghey.
Gary,
“Otherwise, I don’t do sex scandals”
Not even as a participant? Inquiring minds want to know.
And of course we are treated to the response that this is a release of information timed to affect the election, as if:
a. the Republican Congressional leadership has not had this information in their possession for months, enabling them to ask Foley not to run again if they so chose, and
b. the Republican Party would never stoop to leak emabarassing information on a Democrat just before an election.
Must…not…give…in…to…temptation.
Dr. Owens will be around shortly, hopefully.
I think we need to look at this from 3 perspectives, similar to how people reacted to the sex abuse scandals in the Catholic Church a few years ago.
1. The actual acts by Representative Foley. These are in and of themselves reprehensible, as were the actions by individual priests. However, this in itself reflects only on Foley.
2. The possible cover-up. I do not know, but would not find it beyond the realm of possibility that the parents who did not want to take it any further were given some form of financial comensation to keep them quiet. SWe know this happened in the Church. This is reprehensible behavior also, and reflects on higher up levels of the republican Party.
3. The most damning, however, is that either the leadership knew the extent of Foley’s behaviors and did nothing about it, or only knew the “over-friendly” (or as Snow says, ‘naughty e-mails’) parts but did not investigate further. Allowing him to remain in a position of frequent contact with the pages, heck not making him resign his position and reporting his behavior to authorities, is in fact the most reprehensible.
I can guarantee you that if Catholic Bishops and cadinals were eleceted by the congregations as they were in the early Church, Law and severeal other officials would not have been in the positions of power they were.
And not because of the facts that some priests abused kids, and not because of the fact that they paid hush money and covered up the extant of the abuse, but because they allowed those preiests to continue in positions where they could continue their behaviors.
BTW, listened to Sam Donaldson being interviewed on a local Chcago station this morning, (not that I have great love for the man) and as he put it, “The Republicans have reached the level of arrogance and hubris in 10 years that it took the Democrats 40 years to achieve.”
Raw Story is reporting that Foley is still using the same Instant Messaging screen name. Somebody caught him signing on this morning and took a screen shot.
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Foley_still_logging_into_chat_with_1003.html
With all the talk of the moral depravity at the root of this scandal, hardly anyone is talking about just how fucking stupid these Republicans are.
Shorter IMAO:
The Republicans have everything so screwed up that the Democrats don’t know what to complain about first! This reflects badly on the Democrats.
Katherine: my heart’s not in this. Maybe if it WERE Kirk Cameron…
Now, that’s a great one-liner.
Slart:
I like the inadvertent puns the best.
Anarch: “…isn’t that what alcohol’s for?”
The mark of a truly moral individual is the person whose liver gives out before their willpower.
Happy hour is a means to mere happiness. It’s the person who leaves the bar “more than happy” who we need to keep an eye on.
Hilzoy: I think Limbaugh’s schtick (sp?) is pharmaceutically fortified. Although your particular quote may have required a few quick nips from a flask through the straws he grasps.
Incidentally, the garden variety, insincere, demagogic hypocrites in the Republican Party enliven the motley human carnival but they don’t really bother me like the sincerely ideological ones who will take their places.
It’s the ones who sincerely believe that Foley’s behavior with minors is a feature of homosexuality whom I want out of office. Also the ones who sincerely believe that it is Washington D.C. that has corrupted Foley and company with its vile proflicacy. In their minds, it’s not that Foley has a personal, human, and possibly criminal problem, but it’s that NOT defunding Medicare led to their Party’s moral downfall.
I prefer my mullahs with lace teddies underneath their robes while they lecture me from dias and pulpit about my naughty bits. It’s the sincere ones with the welded chastity armature underneath I’m worried about. The reformed alcoholics are particularly dangerous.
They’ll be the ones who privatize Social Security and waste blood and treasure on forcing everyone to volunteer for democracy and captitalism, not that there is anything wrong with those concepts, but how much blood and treasure do you think we’ll need to achieve paradise?
I think Limbaugh’s bit is of a part with the bits of everyone else who’s pointing pretty much anywhere away from the R side of the aisle: the desire not to let one’s ideological opponents have an opportunity to make hay.
Been there, done that, retired into relative obscurity.
Oh, yeah: I don’t buy the alcoholism defense, either. Didn’t buy it when Mel Gibson did it; didn’t buy it when Kennedy did it, or when the other Kennedy did it, or when the other Kennedy did it.
If I’ve got too many (or too few) Kennedy digs in, pretend that I don’t care all that much about getting it right.
John Thullen, what makes you think “ones who sincerely believe that Foley’s behavior with minors is a feature of homosexuality”, or the ones who blame DC or Medicare, are distinct from the ones with lace teddies?
Islander: profanity is against the rules here, both because of our delicate sensibilities and because we want people to be able to read us even if they’re at work, behind filters that screen stuff out. Thanks.
“Which makes it perhaps more imperative to perhaps avoid strawmannish questions?”
LJ, I should note that I’m getting really tired of un-asked for lectures from you on what I should write.
I responded to you honestly; that you meant to be funny, and I didn’t notice: well, these things happen.
cleek: “i think Misha should be monitored by the FBI.”
Misha is obviously providing material support to terrorists by making death threats against members of Congress on his blog, and clearly needs to detained indefinitely. Too bad he won’t be able to see a judge. Ever again.
Couldn’t happen to a nicer rabid animal.
Is it a posting rules violating if words have asterisks in them? Does the number matter? My understanding was that it took an actual word to violate the profanity clause. Has this changed? If so, about a billion comments should have gotten objections, and I should have been banned several times, but I’m hardly the only one. Is saying “**** you” acceptable? “F*** you”? F**k you? Only one asterisk is not?
Seriously, if people are getting official warnings for that, then things are ****ed up on consistency grounds.
I think Hilzoy’s 10:58 AM is entirely right.
One can expect as much consistency, sense, or honesty from Limbaugh as from a dust storm.
Dantheman:
No, I just do the sex.
islander, posting a broken, non-embedded, link, isn’t helpful. In any case, here is where folks want to go.
Which means it’s time for my bi-weekly on How To Embed A Link.
Here is a handy guide to HTML tags.
You can use “find” to go to “link something.”
Here’s how you link (you can copy this and paste it as necessary, if you can’t remember): <A HREF=”URL”> </A>
Put words as necessary between > <
Do that, and your links will be usable, not broken.
Oh, wait. People were responding to islander’s 12:09 PM, not Stewart Beta’s 08:39 AM.
*Never Mind*.
No, never mind my never mind. cleek did respond to Stewart Beta, and Andrew’s warning was to him.
Then came another exchange.
Sorry; playing ketchup.
John Thullen, what makes you think “ones who sincerely believe that Foley’s behavior with minors is a feature of homosexuality”, or the ones who blame DC or Medicare, are distinct from the ones with lace teddies?
In the World inhabited by the species Johnous Thulleaneous there is no such thing as cognitive dissonance, thus ruling out the existence of the creature you so describe.
It’s probably useful to link to and point out the actual posting rules on the upper right sidebar when trying to point them out to people, I suggest.
Ditto the the banning rules.
Sorry; playing ketchup.
Gary, your 1:24 was very saucy. my condiments.
“Sorry; playing ketchup.”
That post just doesn’t pass mustard.
That post just doesn’t pass mustard.
Or gas.
Is it Pun Month at Obsidian Wings?
I agreed with Andrew and — well, whoever first called posting rules on SB, and my thinking was less that asterisks are not OK in their place (I mean, I went on to use one myself), but rather that this:
“anything is better than having that Left Coast Liberal Witch and her N*ggers in charge of congress…”
is an uncivil thought to be attributing to people, even the Idiotarian whatever, without their having said it first. (And if this is a reference to some previous statement by one of the bloggers Gary linked, I retract this, and insert instead the thought that links are good in cases like this.)
Personally, I think the whole world would be nicer of the people who are worried about Teh Ghey had just made a tiny typo in their heads and gone on a crusade against Teh Ghee. (‘Clarified butter out of Congress!’)
KCinDC:
“What makes me think… etc?”
Some really believe they are distinct, others just kid themselves. It’s the former who worry me. When they refuse to compromise ideologically, there is no tell-tale garter belt to show that they are prone to hypocrisy, which is, after all, one of the minor human vices and at least makes the latter approachable.
Without hypocrisy, all we have left is guys living in caves in Pakistan and Colorado Springs and the House of Representatives who want to ruin it for the rest of us.
“If worthless men are at the head of affairs, it is, I believe, because worthless men are at the tail and the middle.”
John Adams
The hopeless romantics from the Gingrich class of 1994 thought they represented all but the worthless. What a truculent bunch, hypocrite and not.
Who shall speak for the worthless, I ask you?
And now I’m having a Galloping Gourmet flashback.
spartikus,
“Is it Pun Month at Obsidian Wings?”
Every month should be pun month.
Ummm…I live in Colorado Springs, and for the record, I only want to ruin things for some of you.
I felt that should be clarified.
“teh ghee”
Will we be having ice cream or sherpa for dessert?
Sorry, that’s an old Nepalese trekking joke.
“Even if he is mediocre there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren’t they, and a little chance? We can’t have all Brandeises, Cardozos, and Frankfurters, and stuff like that there.”
—Sen. Roman Hruska
speaking of Foley… be sure to catch the latest hot man-on-teen action, via ABC News.
Andrew:
Bob McManus lives in Texas, and I don’t hold it against him. Besides, I live near Colorado Springs and my generalizing never includes me so I can make exceptions. And Slart is from Florida, which has never improved my opinion of Katheline Harris.
I hope this clarification margarinally improves the situation.
Hilzoy’s title
tells me this is about media performance wherein we voyeurs get to look at the real muscles of our political body, not Foley, not his handlers, not Hastert…
Well, as the sailor’s say when the ship is dismasted, a severe case of erectile dysfunction.
Everyone’s worst fear.
Right, men?
John,
Oh, no offense taken, rest assured. Indeed, I would certainly do my best to ruin it for you, if only because your prose makes me positively emerald with envy.
I hope this clarification margarinally improves the situation.
For. The. Love. Of. God. No. More. Puns.
LJ, I should note that I’m getting really tired of un-asked for lectures from you on what I should write.
I responded to you honestly; that you meant to be funny, and I didn’t notice: well, these things happen.
[looks at comment, tries to figure out why telling people they are annoying isn’t an honest response]
[tries to think of some honest response that wouldn’t be taken by Gary as telling him what to write]
[thinks about suggesting that Charles hire Gary to proofread Charles’ novel]
[thinks back nostalgically at Charles’s time here]
[goes off to craft a condiment pun]
Is it Pun Month at Obsidian Wings?”
Every month should be pun month.
Whoa, DTM, let’s just take it pun month at a time.
Whoa, DTM, let’s just take it pun month at a time.
Nyeaaaarrgh!
I predict even LJ’s restraint will curry no favor with Gary.
I predict my howls of protest will go unkneaded.
I predict even LJ’s restraint will curry no favor with Gary.
yes, that’s quite a pickle he’s got himself into. quite a dill-lemon. i wish i had some sage advice to offer… but all i have is chive talk.
You guys got too much thyme.
Sorry to interrupt the condipun, but back On-Topic:
Mr. Ross dismissed suggestions by some Republicans that the news was disseminated as part of a smear campaign against Mr. Foley.
“I hate to give up sources, but to the extent that I know the political parties of any of the people who helped us, it would be the same party,” Mr. Ross said, referring to Republicans
Sorry Rush.
Obviously, the dems have gotten some sleeper agents in and they are choosing this moment to strike!
“all I have is chive-talk”
That’s not very oregano. Look, I’m plum out of thyme and must not tarra. Gon I yam, or I’ll take the cloves off.
Sir. The radar, sir. It appears to be….
….jammed.
Jammed? [takes a taste of the jam] Raspberry. There’s only one man who would dare give me the raspberry. [pulls down mask] Lone Starr!
John T.,
We shouldn’t pepper Ugh with any more puns. Soon (s)he will turnip missing after all these a-salts.
Then that’s all you shall get in return.
About the link cleek gave above: the headline says it all:
“New Foley Instant Messages; Had Internet Sex While Awaiting House Vote”
Nice to know how seriously he took HR 1559: Emergency War Time Supplemental Appropriations.
Gon I yam, or I’ll take the cloves off.
peas, not that! i’ll fry to be butter.
Then that’s all you shall get in return
eew. stop, it burnses.
i wonder how long till the word “Foley” takes on a life of its own, as “Santorum” has.
You know, if you guys are going to do a pun thread, you might want to do it in a thread where the title is short.
>It’s probably useful to link to and point out the actual posting rules on
the upper right sidebar when trying to point them out to people, I suggest.
The link that refers you back to Tac’s posting rules(wasn’t aware that
he ever had any) is orphaned.
[posting rules?]
Being familiar with the Southern Strategy, Wille Horton, Jesse
Helms white hand ad and having read the The Corner, LGF,Free Republic, etc I am not sure as to how I am off the mark.
It seems kowalski is finally having his come to Jesus moment with the GOP, with this as the last straw.
The kids were of legal age. Let’s stop equating Foley with Catholic priests.
He is guilty of sexual harrasment and overall being a creep though. And the Republican leadership is guilty of covering it up.
Steward,
From the aforementioned posting rules, which you can find on a link in the right hand sidebar.
No profanity. For the record, ‘hell’, ‘damn’ and ‘pissed’ are not considered ‘profanity’ for the purposes of this rule; also for the record, the more offensive racial slurs and epithets will be deemed to ‘profanity’ for the purposes of this rule
If you are truly incapable of seeing where you violated this, I’m not sure what to tell you.
Catsy,
If not, the last straw is in the comments. Wow, when they turn on each other, they can turn on a dime.
Steward, I’d suggest there’s something about farting in a church, but I’ve never actually figured out what that phrase means. I mean, whose at fault, you for farting, the others for giving you a dirty look or the church for not being a place conducive to farting?
I blame the church, but I was brought up Catholic.
My humorous aside should not be taken as undercutting Andrew’s warning, though.
He is guilty of sexual harrasment and overall being a creep though.
and, according to at least one IM stream (in the link i gave, upthread), of offering alcohol to a minor.
You’re not going to believe this.
Oh, sorry, cleek; been busy elsewhere.
Hilzoy:
Okay, makes sense to me.
Thullen:
G. Harrold Carswell.
Sigh. Okay, finishing entire thread before commenting again.
“i wonder how long till the word ‘Foley’ takes on a life of its own, as ‘Santorum’ has.”
Nonsense; that can’t happen; any such usages are innocent.
At least, on this blog they are, officially.
As for hilzoy’s of 10:44 am, when Rush can give us a good explanation as to what he was doing with an illegal bottle of viagra when he returned from a place well known for its underage sex trade, well then, maybe his ruminations will be taken a bit more seriously.
a crusade against Teh Ghee
As if Indian-Americans hadn’t suffered enough at the hands of Republicans this season!
all I have is chive-talk
Why yes, I speak chive…
As if Indian-Americans hadn’t suffered enough at the hands of Republicans this season!
Whatchoo talkin’ ’bout, macaca?
I mean, whose at fault, you for farting, the others for giving you a dirty look or the church for not being a place conducive to farting?
The waitress who served the Huevos Rancheros with a side of Refried Beans.
Anarch–
I must insist you stop monkeying around.
According to the banner at ABCNews.com, Foley’s attorney will hold a presser in about 5 min to drop a “bombshell.”
Any guesses?
Me: His attorney will state that Foley has been the victim of an extortion campaign and never sent any of those IMs or emails and only resigned because he had an alcohol problem and didn’t want the accusations to be an issue in the upcoming elections.
Any guesses?
all the “pages” were actually FBI agents, conducting a sting operation.
all the “pages” were actually FBI agents, conducting a sting operation.
That’s better, or how about a combination: he was part of an FBI sting operation to smoke out purported extortionists.
That Foley’s actually a Democrat.
Arkansas?
Things still seem to be standing here in DC, so it must not have been much of a bombshell. Oh, here it is (abcnews.com banner): “FORMER CONGRESSMAN MARK FOLEY WAS MOLESTED BY A CLERGYMAN AS A TEENAGER AND IS GAY, ACCORDING TO HIS ATTORNEY”.
I think someone here (or several people) predicted that announcement yesterday.
Hastert: they’re out to get him.
Etc. And: oh, no!
(Anyone remember “Mr. Bill” from SNL in the Seventies?)
And the sad thing is that there are enough dim bulbs who believe Rush and Hastert about how the “Dems are out to get them.”
Anyone remember “Mr. Bill” from SNL in the Seventies?
doing Rush and Hastert Mr Bill style would require a lot more clay, I think…
This post at TPM Cafe’s Election Central bears on Hilzoy’s question about Reynolds and Fordham.
My take: Reynolds is lying like a rug. He sent Fordham, or agreed freely to his going, to get Foley out of the way of the media for a few days.
Arkansas?
Somewhat to the south and east, actually, although you do put me in mind of a number of jokes.
That is to say, your comment does, not you qua Slartibartfast.
Gwangung, enough for what? I’m still hoping any people who’d believe Rush on that are in the 30% that are unreachable regardless.
the 30% that are unreachable regardless.
Ah yes, the 30% who would respond to BTKWB with “he did it to show the terrorists how tough we are!’
“FORMER CONGRESSMAN MARK FOLEY WAS MOLESTED BY A CLERGYMAN AS A TEENAGER AND IS GAY, ACCORDING TO HIS ATTORNEY”.
yeah… and that is relevant, how ? not many blocks were busted by that one, i’d wager.
Oooo, check out the cage match between Baseballcrank of the blog of the same name (and also just “Crank” on redstate) and john cole (actually, I just skimmed it so it might not be much of a cage match).
My take: Reynolds is lying like a rug. He sent Fordham, or agreed freely to his going, to get Foley out of the way of the media for a few days.
And if Fordham is a good soldier, he’ll say that he didn’t get approval, and then hope his falling on the sword will be viewed with approval. If he doesn’t, it will really indicate total implosion.
Here’s to reading all the way to the end of the thread before responding. Actually, I thought you were talking about Thailand; oh what a story that would have been.
Slarti, you honestly don’t know about Rush and the Viagra from his vacation in the Dominican Republic?
I thought the Arkansas crack was pretty offensive, but maybe I don’t know enough about Arkansas.
lj: doing Rush and Hastert Mr Bill style would require a lot more clay
brings to mind this from Billmon.
“I thought the Arkansas crack was pretty offensive, but maybe I don’t know enough about Arkansas.”
I was thinking it was perhaps some sort of not-quite-making-sense hit on the Clintons, but basically I chalked it up as Slart being cryptic and it not being worth asking about.
No: Alabama and Virginia were pretty much all worn out.
And probably I should have looked here before saying anything, but I don’t tend to do such things before cracking wise. Or unwise, more likely.