Politically cutesy name games are a huge pet peeve of mine, mainly because they are just so patently obvious. Amy Klobuchar is simply the most recent example.

Judi Dutcher, when she was still a republican and running for auditor, claimed her decision to retain her notable father's name had nothing to due with any political intentions she held. I think she actually expected people to believe her. Speaking of the auditor's office, I thought Pat Awada was a perfectly fine name. But Anderson plays better in a statewide race, so viola, meet Patricia Anderson.

And if you're honest, you'll acknowledge that the only reason this is an issue is due to the incredible ineptness Mark Kennedy has shown (yet again) conducting a campaign.

"I thought Pat Awada was a perfectly fine name. But Anderson plays better in a statewide race, so viola, meet Patricia Anderson."

Actually, Pat is now divorced from her ex-husband, Mr. Awada.

"Actually, Pat is now divorced from her ex-husband, Mr. Awada."

Yes Mitch. Now. But in 2002, she fought for, and won, the right to appear on the ballot as "Patricia Anderson Awada", after being fairly well known locally as fiesty Eagan mayor Pat Awada. I hope you're not denying a pretty transparent move on her part.

How do you know she wasn't thinking ahead?

Wasn't she trying to distance herself from the gambling/money laundering happening at Awada's on Plato?

Pat Anderson is a misdemeanor offense compared to Martin Olav Sabo when it comes to shameless, reprehensible Norske pandering.

Speaking of crimes, how 'bout that Mark Foley?

I'm guessing your talking points haven't come down from the Party yet.

No AC, the talking points were delivered via the EIB this morning.

Here they are...

1) The Democrats have nothing to talk about so they have to focus on this Foley deal - a deal that has already been dealt with.

2) Democrats refuse to acknowledge their own moral failings - look at Clinton.

3) If the Democrats take the House, the country is in danger of another terrorist attack.

Hey clown - a bunch of little Amish girls were executed yesterday.

Don't you have anything funny to say about that?

Depends, Mike. Did the entire House Republican leadership know about it beforehand?

Now wait just one dang minute there, buster. This is a private matter. It's just about sex. It doesn't affect job performance. It's time to move on. Or are you a homophobic bigot?

I'm sure it must seem that way to you, Eracus, sitting in your '84 Chevette, eyeing the boys on your local middle-school soccer field. But it turns out s3x with underage kids is against the law. Go figure.

I have admittedly been only paying topical attention to this story, but have I missed something here? Did Foley actually have s3x with any of these pages? I was under the impression that his correspondence was limited to e-mail. Not that that makes Foley any less creepy, but I'm fuzzy on which laws he may or may not have actually broken.

I did not have s3x with that page.

The good news is I'm a lock for Nambla's Man of the Year.

In no way is this offered as a defense of Foley's reprehensible behavior only to compare and contrast:

A Republican Congressman who propositions underage male pages? Resigns in disgrace.

A Democratic Congressman who actually has sex with an underage male page? Reelected five times.

If Foley were to switch parties, he could become an instant frontrunner for the Democrat's 2008 presidential nomination.

Eracus, if that's a Clinton reference, I would remind you that MoveOn was started by a group that wanted to censure the President and then move on to the real issues facing the nation - issues like oh I dont know terrorism...?

Also, Ms. Lewinski was an adult.

Quite a long memory you've got there, elder. Let me know how that defense goes down on the campaign trail, elder. Kinda sucks for you, turnoutwise, that the all-important religious wingnuts think guys like Foley should be put to death by stoning.

"I would remind you that MoveOn was started by a group that wanted to censure the President..."

In other words, to pressure the House into settling for a lesser result than they wanted...

"... and then move on to the real issues facing the nation - issues like oh I dont know terrorism...?"

Doug, show me ONE MoveOn person who EVER commented about the imperative to fight terror before 9/11 (or, for that matter, show me a consistent pattern of *rational, considered* engagement with the issue since then). Hint: You can not. You may now begin your usual process of ratcheting your claim back in the general direction of reality.

"Kinda sucks for you, turnoutwise, that the all-important religious wingnuts think guys like Foley should be put to death by stoning."

Yeah, funny, innit, how those IMs from 2003 pop up just in time to try to depress evanglical turnout, isn't it?

Since the St. Petersburg Times had the story in November of 2005, that whole "timing" thing starts to look just a little like "obstruction of justice" and "child endangerment", to say nothing of "crass opportunism".

Fearless prediction: At the end of the day, the record will show some Democratic operative allowed Foley to discuss with juvenile boys exactly what the Democrats want to do to the war on terror, the economy, and the nation at large.

“I have admittedly been only paying topical attention to this story, but have I missed something here? Did Foley actually have s3x with any of these pages? I was under the impression that his correspondence was limited to e-mail. Not that that makes Foley any less creepy, but I'm fuzzy on which laws he may or may not have actually broken.”

Under the Mann Act (click on my name for the statute), it is illegal to coerce or entice a minor using means of interstate commerce (in this case email and instant messaging) to travel to part of the United States to commit a sexual act for which either person charged with a criminal offense (paraphrase).

The problem with prosecuting Foley under this law is that it incorporates the laws of the State where the act is intended to occur in order to determine what is a sexual act that either can be charged with a criminal offense. The age of consent for a male is sixteen in most jurisdictions including both Washington DC (where both worked) and Florida (where both lived). In order to prosecute Foley, prosecutors would need to be able to prove that the act was intended to occur in a State where it would be illegal (such as Virginia where the age of consent is 18).

Hope that helps clarify things.

"Kinda sucks for you, turnoutwise, that the all-important religious wingnuts think guys like Foley should be put to death by stoning."

"Yeah, funny, innit, how those IMs from 2003 pop up just in time to try to depress evanglical turnout, isn't it?"

What even funnier is how we all know that while one party purges these creeps, the other one promotes them.
AC, how's the investigation of Congressman Jefferson going? Boy the Ultra Moral Democrats sure did turn a blind eye to that freezer full of cash, didn't they?

Angryclown, you ignorant hypocritical homophobic bigot, the age of consent in Washington, DC is 16. And since you can't be a congressional page unless you're 16, how is hittin' up on that hot and nasty little twink anybody else's business except Mark Foley's? It's not against the law, and everybody duz it, right? Afterall, it's just about sex!! And since sex is such a private matter, why is it any of our business how some elected government official gets his rocks off?? Who are you to judge, man??

And just like with Monica, it's not like our little tattle-tale wasn't a willing little buttbuddy to all that gooey scooby-doo, because we have reams and reams of chatroom cooing coming on-line every day now just to prove how much that charming handsome barely legal sexy teen really wanted to be with his own very special daddy --some 50 times-- and saved each loving cup to his harddrive, or someone else's for safekeeping. Why, even Monica saved her own very special daddy's special dress, no?? So where's the crime here?? No one broke any laws. It's all good!! Look at all the wonderful diversity!! So why are you crazy nutball liberal Democrats suddenly all becoming so judgmental about everything over something so silly as this very special legal man-boy homosexual cyberspace relationship?? Don't you care about gay people?? What if it turns out they want to get married some day?? Where's the tolerance, dude??

Where's the love??

"Kinda sucks for you, turnoutwise, that the all-important religious wingnuts think guys like Foley should be put to death by stoning."

Not really considering that Foley was a pro-abortion anti-FMA candidate and will likely be replaced with Joe Negron who has a 100 percent rating from the Florida Christian Coalition (click on my name for the link). If I were a social conservative living in that district, I would definitely be more motivated to vote for Negron than I would have been for Foley.

"A Democratic Congressman who actually has sex with an underage male page? Reelected five times."

Yes, elder, but we liberals support the gay community. I bet Congressman Frank said the word "AIDS" in the 80s unlike Prez Reagan.

Thorley,

Kinda sucks that they've got to vote for Foley to do it huh.

Eracus,

Glad to see you working on that new Republican campaign theme, "Vote GOP, its not your father's party anymore. More like your little brother's."

Thoroughly Wasted said: "If I were a social conservative living in that district, I would definitely be more motivated to vote for Negron than I would have been for Foley."

Alas, they'll have to pull the lever (or punch the butterfly ballot, or whatever backward manner they have to "vote" in Florida these days) for Foley, the gay perv. And "social conservatives" ("religious nuts" as they're known to normal people) won't exactly do that in droves. Face reality, Mighty Thor. That's now a Democratic seat.

The Republicans in our distance have made it very clear that they do not want to discuss the Foley issue until after the election, but then they keep bringing it up themselves. They put out a statement today stating that Mark Foley did not break any laws when he was making sexual advances toward minor boys, and that he always waited until the Congressional Page Boys were of the age of consent before having sex with, therefore it is a non-issue.

They also said that Hastert looked into the issue and was not concerned once he discovered that Mark Foley was very careful to operate just within the bounds of the law. Hastert is confident that Mark Foley did not stray from his modus operandi, and always waited until the Congressional Pages were of legal age before engaging in sex with them.

The Republican’s in our district have formed a united front to support Hastert in his decision to let Foley continue, and they would support anyone else who follows the letter of the law when having sex with young boy Pages.

I am a Republican and will support this position also. I just won’t let any of my kids near my elected officials.

The Republicans in our district have made it very clear that they do not want to discuss the Foley issue until after the election, but then they keep bringing it up themselves. They put out a statement today stating that Mark Foley did not break any laws when he was making sexual advances toward minor boys, and that he always waited until the Congressional Page Boys were of the age of consent before having sex with, therefore it is a non-issue.

They also said that Hastert looked into the issue and was not concerned once he discovered that Mark Foley was very careful to operate just within the bounds of the law. Hastert is confident that Mark Foley did not stray from his modus operandi, and always waited until the Congressional Pages were of legal age before engaging in sex with them.

The Republican’s in our district have formed a united front to support Hastert in his decision to let Foley continue, and they would support anyone else who follows the letter of the law when having sex with young boy Pages.

I am a Republican and will support this position also. I just won’t let any of my kids near my elected officials.