Angryclown's writing ad copy for the Wetterling campaign now?

Again with the "Goebbels"? Third time in a week.

So Mitch, are you pro-child molester or just against protecting our children?

AC, you are a complete and utter tool.

Just like the rest of your fellow-travelers on the far Left. you are playing politics with a story where no politics exist. You are already badly overreaching, and people (other than the foam-flecked left) don't respond well to that.

The only good that will come from this is that the far Left will continue to show itself for what it is.

Really, JonM? Guess you think the Washington Times, which is calling for Hastert to step down as speaker, is a leftist "fellow tra-veller." So I'll put you down as favoring a "cut and run" approach to gay child molesters?

Okay, AC, let's do a little thinking exercise.

Judging by your adolescent-level snark, I can pretty confidently surmise that you're probably about 15 or 16 years old. Maybe younger, but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here.

Okay, you little 16-year-old, I've always liked your cute little snark, and I've wanted to look at your cute, angry, clownish legs, and I'm curious where you eject your clown batter when you angrily play with yourself. A towel, perhaps?

Now, AC, did I just molest you? If you're prepared to say "yes," then let's all get ready for a re-writing of the law that nobody, and I mean NOBODY, is going to be comfortable with.

Foley's a sicko, no question. Repugnant, as Mitch said, and deserved an end to his political career. But I stop short of calling "molester" until there's evidence that Foley, you know, actually MOLESTED anyone.

I mean, Jesus, if immoral and explicit IM conversations enter into the realm of "molester," I imagine about 2/3 of the online world is probably guilty to some degree. Odin Soli, for one, must be shaking in his loafers if that's the case.

Again, this in no way exonorates Foley, who was exposed for the yucko he is, but if he never pursued his IM fantasies and never actually had intimate contact with any of these pages, can he really be called a "molester?"

The issue here shouldn't be Foley as we are all in full agreement that he needs help, but this became a political issue as it appreas that Republican leadership knew about this behavior and failed to address it.

A thinking exercise, Ryan? Better warm up first - you haven't used your brain in as long as Angryclown has been around here. Wouldn't want to sprain something.

So let's see if Angryclown understands. You're not defending a child molester. You're only defending a 53-year-old Congressman who was into *Internet* s3x with children. That'll look good on a campaign poster.

The ad includes headlines that would've been available Sunday at the earliest.

http://www.bachmannvwetterling.com/?p=510

"You're only defending a 53-year-old Congressman who was into *Internet* s3x with children. That'll look good on a campaign poster."

Yeah, AC, I'm really defending Foley. Right there where I called him a yucko who deserved to lose his job. Yes, that's my defense of him. You really are a fucking idiot. I should have known better than to attempt a thinking exercise with a completely brain dead moron. I should have started with something more simple.

Hey, here's a ball; perhaps you'd like to bounce it?

"it appreas that Republican leadership knew about this behavior and failed to address it."

Really? Where does this "appearance" come from? According to Hastert, the GOP House leadership acted on *what they knew about*, and (given the nature of the emails) acted appropriately.

Unless you *know* (and "I Read it on DU!" is not "Knowledge") that Hastert et al knew more, there really is no there there.

Clown:

"Guess you think the Washington Times..."

Suddenly, you care what the WashTimes said?

It is indeed an age of wonders.

Uh-oh.....

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=17353

"GOP House leadership acted on *what they knew about*, and (given the nature of the emails) acted appropriately."

I beg to differ. Here was an individual whose sexual orientation was in doubt, sending "overly friendly" emails to a 16 year old page, so friendly that the page reported the emails to his sponsor, in which he said, "Maybe it is just me being paranoid, but seriously. This freaked me out."

"I'm curious where you eject your clown batter when you angrily play with yourself. A towel, perhaps?"

Excuse me while I wipe the coffee off my monitor that forcefully ejected from my mouth as a result of the diaphragmatic spasm caused by that exquisitely genius phrase. Bravo! Amazing!

Ryan just won the "Best SITD Comment of '06" award with that one, clowns down.

"Here was an individual whose sexual orientation was in doubt, sending "overly friendly" emails to a 16 year old page, so friendly that the page reported the emails to his sponsor, in which he said, "Maybe it is just me being paranoid, but seriously. This freaked me out."

Whoa there Fulcrum....are you really saying that the House leadership should have isolated Foley from the pages? And basing it on his sexual orientation??? Are you really going to go down that road and if so, how do you feel about the Boy Scouts who have been sued for doing the same thing???????

See, here's the thing, Log Lady. It doesn't matter how Fulcrum answers your question. The far right wing of your party - the folks Republicans are working like heck to motivate in an off-year election - thinks that a gay man has no business in any position of trust, period. By their lights, Foley should have been stoned to death long before he learned how to instant message boys. Why should they go out and vote for a party that tolerates sodomites when it's to their electoral advantage? Why not just sit home and wait for the Rapture?

No TLL, what i am saying is that there was enough inf0rmation in the fall of 2005 to warrant more than just a reprimand, that Republican leadership failed to act appropriately at that time, contrary to Mitch's beliefs. Obviously hindsight is 20/20, but they knew enough at that time that they should have investigated the matter. And this does not even include the rumors that in 2001 "A Republican staff member tells congressional pages to "watch out" for Foley, according to ABC News."

However, this would all be a mute point if Repulicans in this case, and politicians in general, learned that honestly admitting to mistakes is ok.

Lady Logician,

For what it’s worth, here were the emails that Foley had sent to the former page:

http://stopsexpredators.blogspot.com/2006/09/emails-from-congressman-foley-to-16.html

The problem is that Hastert and the GOP leadership only knew about the emails last fall and it’s the instant messages which were what was sexually explicit. The emails in and of themselves (which is all that was known before) could still have an innocent explanation which is why they were probably categorized as inappropriate rather than explicit. The problem is with trying this in the media is that most people don’t realize that the material which was actually explicit only came to light when the boy’s parents contacted the speaker and even then they asked him to keep it quiet to protect their son’s privacy.

Mitch:

What is not telling the Democrats on the Page committee or at least the Democratic chair of the Page committee, if not a cover-up?

Does anyone at this sight have even the slightest doubt that if Mark Foley had been a Democrat, Hastert, Boehner, McReynolds, Shimkus, and Alexander would have pressed the issue with far more urgency?

"The problem is with trying this in the media is that most people don’t realize that the material which was actually explicit only came to light when the boy’s parents contacted the speaker and even then they asked him to keep it quiet to protect their son’s privacy."

Or at least that's the uncorroborated recollection of the Republican Congressmen, refreshed in the light of a page-one scandal.

Just out of curiosity, Thorley, why do you suppose the e-mails were considered important enough: 1. to raise the issue with the third guy in line to the presidency and 2. for a member of the Republican leadership to warn Foley to cut off contact with the kid. Yet somehow the issue was never raised with the bipartisan committee that oversees the page program.

A number of voters may well look at these facts and judge that the Republicans were protecting Foley and the party, not the kids in the page program.

The exaggeration of facts or outright lying is nothing new in extreme political discourse, nor is it exclusive to the "Goebells-like" Democrats. For example, note the repeated times Sean Hannity has said in the last few days that Monica Lewinsky was a teenager, when she was in fact 22. Both sides do their share, which is one of the reasons while political discourse in this country is hurting the country.

Thorley:
"the emails in and of themselves (which is all that was known before) could still have an innocent explanation which is why they were probably categorized as inappropriate rather than explicit"

The e-mails included the following:
1. Foley, a 54 year old man, ask a page he barely knows what he wants for his birthday and to send him a picture.

2. Foley, a 54 year old man, describes another page as someone who "acts older than his age" and who is in "really great shape".

They could have been innocent, but they clearly warrented further investigation. Only a politically motivated desire to not know can explain their lack of action.

Spin monkey spin!!!!! It must be wonderful having such low self esteem that suporting potential pedophiles is rewarding for you. I hear the John Wayne Gacy fan club is looking for a new president.

And keep in mind the right wing got outraged over the president and a consenting adult...now its your turn, reap what you sow!

>

Hey, Mitch - ya moron - Bob Novak reports today that that even after House GOP leaders knew that Foley had written an inappropriate e-mail to a 16-year-old former male page, they were still urging him to seek re-election:

"A member of the House leadership told me that Foley, under continuous political pressure because of his sexual orientation, was considering not seeking a seventh term this year but that Rep. Tom Reynolds, chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), talked him into running."

Geeze - that shre makes the Democrats into Goebbels.

As to the notion that the GOP "covered up" anything - we're thoroughly into Goebbels territory.

Hey, Mitch - ya moron - Bob Novak reports today that that even after House GOP leaders knew that Foley had written an inappropriate e-mail to a 16-year-old former male page, they were still urging him to seek re-election:

"A member of the House leadership told me that Foley, under continuous political pressure because of his sexual orientation, was considering not seeking a seventh term this year but that Rep. Tom Reynolds, chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), talked him into running."

Geeze - that sure makes the Democrats into Goebbels.

I am loving this - hard as you and hastert and bush may try, there is no way to spin out of it. You can call it whatever you want, bottom line, the guy is a gay child molester, and his crimes were covered up by the republican Speaker of the House (who will resign within a week by the way) and the head of the RNCC (who is going to lose his seat, aside from getting charged with conspiracy and bribery). Best just to try and ignore this and talk about Iraq, er, the economy, er, gas prices, er, FEMA, ah god show some mercy . Har dee har har...

The emails in and of themselves (which is all that was known before) could still have an innocent explanation which is why they were probably categorized as inappropriate rather than explicit.

If some 50-something congresscritter asked either of my kids to e-mail him a picture, I'd be on his doorstep with my Henry Aaron model Louisville Slugger. Hell NO, that isn't just "inappropriate." That's a big fat red flag with "PERV" on it in Day-Glo letters, with alarm bells going off at 120 dB on a 1,000-watt sound system.

RickDFL nails it (so to speak): "Only a politically motivated desire to not know can explain their lack of action." Well, that or an IQ low enough to freeze alcohol. Either one should disqualify them from government employment.

Goebbels territory? LMAO! Yes, we are. The wheat is being separated from the chaff. Thank goodness, many responsible Republicans can see past there nose. Those IMBECILES and power-worshipping dimwits like you are the only thing resembling Nazi propaganda.

Somone posted the following over at Lucianne.com and I think it sums it up very well:

"Well it sure looks like the Democrats are the pot calling the kettle black as they are all for gay rights and certainly Foley was just a gay man doing what some gay men do, troll for prospective partners. Since apparently the legal age for consent in the District of Columbia is 16 years of age, and the page that Foley was contacting was apparently 17 years of age, it appears that no matter how you look at such conduct as being wrong in a lot of ways, no law would have been violated. Certainly the Democrats would be the first to say that there should be no difference in the age of consent as it related to either heterosexual or homosexual sex. Maybe the Democrats look at that somewhat differently when a Republican is involved?"

Hey mitch-

Looks like you got linked to by a moonbat blog. Which one?

GOP: God - Oil - Pederasts

Y'see, Angryclown? THAT's how you do ofay ad-hominem!

Colleen - when a congressman engages in unethical behavior with an high school intern, it's wrong. Period. Be it republican and democrat. How is this a case of the pot calling the kettle black?

Oh, goody. Another Daou-alanche.

Kinda like having your alcoholic, unstable cousin come by to say "hi".

Mitch> "The Dems take a big lie and repeat it"

Check

Mitch> "...until the dimmer or less-inf0rmed minds and the media buy it without question."

(Looks over new visitors in comment section)

Check.

We aren't called moonbats anymore. The correct term is "progressive" (because being progressive is bad for some reason).
If I had any power in the RNC, I'd suggest folks lay off the 3rd reich analogies. It is far to easy to draw similarities between activities of the current bunch in power with Goebels (Fox news, Tony Snow, Scott McClellan), Gestapo (warrantless wire taps, kidnapping for torture, suspension of habeas corpus for enemies of the state), and the continues struggle for Heimatsekuritaet (war on terror). You even have your own Reichstag fire (9-11) justifying your every action with Osama bin Laden playing the role of Marinus Vanderlubbe. Of course the difference being the germans caught him.

So you frequent Lucianne.com, Scary Colleen? Good Lord, you are a nut.

"I mean, Jesus, if immoral and explicit IM conversations enter into the realm of "molester," I imagine about 2/3 of the online world".

So that includes yourself then? Must protect one's own? Let us know when the FBI visits your house and searches your computer.

Shot In the Dark - talk about graphic - What is this the underage bi-curious blog?

JWDBH:

Your take on German (and American) history is as funny as it is wrong.

Er, no. It's wronger than it is funny. THAT's it.

Let me know if you're up for a real discussion of either.

Won't hold my breath, or anything. The Daou crowd makes Angryclown seem downright socratic.

Want to get Socratic? Let's drink hemlock!

You first.

As a conservative in the Twin Cities, I'm immune to hemlock.

(Burp).

Your turn.

Playing politics with the Foley story? maybe. How could anyone resist.

Serves Republicans right for the swiftboat fraud.

Sorry, this one's a loser for your side no matter how you spin it.

Playing politics with the Foley story?

Serves Republicans right for the swiftboat fraud.

Sorry, this one's a loser for your side no matter how you spin it.

Mitch,

Now that JWDBH has gone for the gold, I'm just wondering at what point and time some Dem political operative starts feeding off "Bush Body Count" theories and starts accusing the GOP of murdering inconvenient "truth tellers."

I am putting NOTHING past the Dems in this election, and that includes windowbusting and other petty violence.

Foley did more than send some nasty IM's to underage pages, which is enough to get him jail time. He actually went out on dates with them whenever he could get the chance.

Look for more shoes to drop. Aparrantly the FBI agent who broke the story to ABC was disgusted because the Justice Department, ie. Ashcroft and Gonzalez, was putting pressure on the FBI all along not to move on the case.

Republicans are suddenly soft and cushy with sexual predators. Normally I avoid him like the plague, but yesterday I heard some Michael Savage that nearly made me lose my dinner. He was going on how as a nation, we're overly obsessed with persuing pedophiles, likening our efforts to catch these predators to the witch hunts of the past. Then there was Drudge, calling the victims beasts to shift the blame from the adult. Disgusting.

I'm seeing more conservative straw-grasping here than anywhere else. It's too entertaining watching you guys twist yourselves into pretzels trying to blame democrats (Goebells? really?) for problems in your own house.

Brian Ross claims his sources for this story are REPUBLICANS. But the democrats are nazi propagandists. rich.

Of course, when a post begins with nazi comparisons (Godwin's law be damned!), the resulting thread is bound to be bonkers.

After being generalized and highly offended with the term "traitor" for 5 years I see no problem in calling every single person defending Foley/Hastert, indeed the ENTIRE right wing, child molesting pederasts that deserve to have their nuts chopped off and die.

Ugh. Made me feel wierd just to type such horrid drivel, how do you righties do it every day?

Look at this:

http://www.cafepress.com/angryclown/

mo·lest (mə-lĕst') pronunciation
tr.v., -lest·ed, -lest·ing, -lests.

1. To disturb, interfere with, or annoy.
2. To subject to unwanted or improper sexual activity.

I also love the "democrats would allow this behaviour" defense.

Well, if we totally ignore that there was a custodial relationship involved and alcohol was offered to a minor, that might be true.

But plenty of pages said they didn't want the attention. unwanted sexual solicitations from a custodian to a teenager online is clearly beyond the consentual sexual activities that liberals claim are no business of the government.

As for whether he molested the kid or not, this clearly isn't as much case of "molestation", as it is about "unwanted solicitation". But clearly Foley had physical sexual contact with at least one page... the transcripts make clear that they had had at least one physical "encounter".

IT WASN'T JUST EMAILS AND IMS.

If the age of consent in DC is 16, I see no legal problem with older men having sex with consenting 16 year olds. But there are other federal laws regarding solcitation of sex from a minor, etc... that were obviously broken.

Foley broke the trust, not only of his constituents, but of the page system itself, the page, and his family (who trusted the system).

And I think 16 is too young to give consent to an adult. I know in some places the age of consent depends on the age of the older party. For example, an 18yo could get consent form a 16yo, while a 21yo could not. That makes a lot of sense. Charging teenagers with statutory rape when they aren't more than a couple years apart makes is just not common-sensical.

Would that be like rethugs saying Iraq had something to do with 911?

Angryflower? Really?

Do you like pina coladas and taking walks in the rain?

Fulcrum - thank you for the civil answer (unlike your "friend" Angryclown)....I was looking for clarity in your position.

Hindsight is indeed 20/20, and using said 20/20 hindsight, you are correct....the punishment for Rep Foley should have been more than a reprimand, however that is set precident in the House. Set in the case of DEMOCRAT Rep Gerry Studds and REPUBLICAN Rep Dan (I am ashamed he is from my homestate) Crane!

In perfect hindsight I would say that a reprimand is not punishment for the crime, but precident has been set. Maybe we should have changed precident when we had the opportunity 1998 when another intern was sexually harassed.....in the Clinton White House.....

AF> "After being generalized and highly offended with the term "traitor" for 5 years I see no problem in calling every single person defending Foley/Hastert, indeed the ENTIRE right wing, child molesting pederasts..."

So someone else's irrationality gives you license to be irrational? That's a fine philosophy of life.

AF>"that deserve to have their nuts chopped off and die."

I bet you're a blast at parties.

AF> "Ugh. Made me feel wierd just to type such horrid drivel, how do you righties do it every day?"

Righties, certainly Mitch, do not.

You and your friends from Salon, OTOH, I worry about.

Ya know, its the cover-up that gets you every time. And if it wasn't a cover-up, it was spectacular mis-management of oversight. Because what we are seeing in Washington is not a liberal media hit-job, is not political-hay-making out of Dems, it's a full-scale self-immolation, circular firing squad of republicans who have not gotten their stories straight and are in full panic mode. And you don't panic if you're innocent, my friends.

As a member of the Democratic Party and all too familiar with circular firing squads (HEY! we invented them!), it's just altogether too sweet to watch you guys take it up a notch. Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of incompetent/indecent/immoral guys (pick your choice of adjective, but one of them applies, friends)!

Republicans: ready, aim, blaze away!
Democrats: pass the popcorn! This is GREAT!

Cheers!

First Rathergate. Now Foleygate.

Dems are desperate...

I think madmatt is a closet molester.

Sorry Log Lady you have your facts wrong.

1. The House GOP leadership have given any "punishment" to Mark Foley, either a Reprimand or a Censure. He resigned without the House taking any action. In fact the GOP refused a Democratic request for an immediate investigation.

2. Studds and Crane were Censured, the stiffest penalty short of expulsion. More importantly, Democrats in control of the House at the time vigorusly investigated complaints by pages.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,953990,00.html

After issues were raised, a serious committee headed by Joe Califano Jr. (a former Cabinet Secretary) was appointed. Even after the initial reports against a variety of members could not be confirmed, they continued to invesitage until they substantiated the complaints against Studds/Crane. Even though the complaints against Studds were more than 10 years old they went ahead and recomended a reprimand. The full house increase the penalty to a Censure.

If Hastert had shown half the concern for pages shown by Democrats in the 80s, he would not be in trouble.

3. Democrats took action to protect future pages though a variety of program changes. "Protections introduced since the early 1980s include an increase in the starting age of pages to 16 from 14, dorms for them to live in, heightened supervision and a board to protect their well-being"

http://www.federalnewsradio.com/index.php?nid=78&sid=931538

4. Finally, by her own un contradicted testimony Monica Lewinsky, a 22 year old who had just accepted a full time White House job, eagerly sought a sexually encounter with President Clinton. There is no deffinition under which that constitutes sexual harrasment of an intern.

more will come out... all has not been revealed. I'm guessing he is wiping his hard drive this morning.

"Maybe we should have changed precident when we had the opportunity 1998 when another intern was sexually harassed.....in the Clinton White House....."

Monica Lewinsky, who was 24 years old at the time, was not sexually harassed by Clinton. His inexcusable impropriet

You start off trying to sound civil and reasonable, only to end up writing something that is stupidly partisan, inaccurate and idiotic.

A. Whether it is molestation is somewhat irrelevant when you consider that Mr. Foley's activities bear an amazing resemblence to activities that he tirelessly advocated be made Federal offenses.

B. Exactly what lie are the democrats guilty of: Has any of the leadership (or their staffs) denied that they had prior knowledge of Mr. Foley's "ickiness".

C. And in any event, does this excuse the behavior, mitigate its devastating effect on those involved, or contradict the hypocrisy of the party of "Values".

Just for the record 'Republicans' now confirm that the Foley matter was not refered to the full page board because the Chief of Staff to the head of the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee asked that it not. That is the very dictionary meaning of a cover-up.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/10/top_gop_staffer.html

Republicans–Defining Molestation Up

The longer Hassert stays the worse Repubs will lose the house.

This is almost as much fun as listening to Jason Lewis, Jason Lewis, Jason Lewis froth at the mouth daily between 5:PM and 7:PM - or is it 8:00?

Hey and a big ole hardy howdie to the new faces on Mitch's little Republican wank site... oops, I mean wonk site...

Poor Eracus must be going nutz right now...

Todd Raczinski said,

"Anyone who supported Bill Clinton in '98-99 had best tread lightly around that subject."

How about people like me who called and wrote Congress demanding that Clinton be Censured?

You're either with the pedos, or you're against the pedos.

The wingnuts seem to have run away from this blog like a bunch of little girls.

Which sucks. Now I have to make fun of all the pansy-ass librals that have taken over the place.

i think the wingnuts that fled the site must be off whippin up a little clown batter of their own! Theyz a nervous WRECK tonight!

How about that Kirk Fordham "revised" resignation statement this afternoon. Fordham might be the John Dean of this Age of Wingnuttery...

..

Oh yeah angryclown? what are you? some kind of clown...? that's angry...? You're a tool man... you and your Kennedy (hick), Pelosi, George Soros social1st commie blame America first liburals...

I hate you and I hate your ass face!

There... Think you'll be able to sleep better tonight?

"Mitch's little Republican wank site... oops, I mean wonk site..."

...on which you leave as many as ten comments a day.

Attention all sixteen year olds reading: I'm a 50 something year old guy. Send me your pics. Tell me about how you work out.

I'm just being overly friendly. No need to worry about my intentions or possible actions toward other 16 year olds that will be working under me and desperately seeking positive college recommendations/internship referals from my long time colleagues and me.

Hey, Daou? Your readers are morons!

Can you say melt down?

Hastert knew for THREE years? Every day this is going to get worse and worse. Hastert will quit. And it will continue to get worse. The comedians will begin to make fun. (Stewart's line five minutes ago was classic: "Announcement: the Republican Picnic and nude cub scout wrestle... has been cancelled." It will get worse and worse. Hey! Guess what? It's not Clinton's fault! Or the libruls! Ya did it to yourself. Start resigning. And start condemning your own, all of them, for their bestial behaviour. They did a horrible wrong. Deal with it.

Meanwhile, as a Democrat: pass the popcorn! This is GREAT! So happy!

It's a crime to engage in lewd conversation with minors. It's considered molestation. Mitch needs a new dictionary. He also needs to look up the meaning of the word irony. It's an irony that he is willingly part of the approach that says "don't talk about anything bad, keep it quiet."

Complicity is a nasty word, but the mindset, and pattern, are clear. Bad news about Iraq, ignore it, bad news about Katrina, deny it, bad news about WMD, attack the messenger, bad news about Delay, refuse to discuss it, bad news about Foley, attempt to keep it under the rug.

Republican-finding every way possible to refuse to have honest dialogue about problems when they have total control of the government.

I sure am glad Mitch and his Liliputians don't insult much. Nice example there. Class act Mitch. Wasn't it you that complained about ad hominem attacks a while back and how you wouldn't make them?

Ted-

You do know that the age of consent in DC is 16 years, right? A grown man can have sex with a 16 year old boy there, and it's legal(which is why a Dem did that 20 or so years ago, and continued to serve in the house). But somehow talking sex with a 16 year old is a crime there? Legally, in DC, there's not much difference between a 16 year page and a 22 year old presidential intern.

Shit,

All this site is good for is a place for the reality based community to meet, date, screw, and procreate.

And yes, I did address this comment to Shit. You know who you are, bitch.

Ted,

I'm about as civil as they come.

But some of the commenters yesterday were...well, the only words that fit are "putrid" and "pathetic".

As for you, "ted" - your complaints are disingenuous, given the insults you were tossing about last week.

Overruled.

"The wingnuts seem to have run away from this blog like a bunch of little girls." - AC

Actually, most of us were at work, happily earning the money to fund the community college that these DAOU wankers spend their time at.
But this was good for a laugh.

See, you silly librals go too far! Sure this is a bad week for the Republicans: A week spent on the defensive; loss of Foley's seat, probably Reynolds'; a clueless Keystone Kops response that may cost Hastert the Speaker's chair; a bunch of close reelection races that just became a little closer.

But let's get real. This ain't Watergate. Sure, Mark Foley was gayin' it up with 16-year-old boys. But that's not going to be the story next week.

The wingnuts are ruining the country. It would help if you guys could convince your party to offer an idea of more recent vintage than the Jefferson Airplane. Also maybe some candidates that normal people don't hate.

Get on that, 'kay?

The GOP.

The party of Torture and Pederasty.

Mitch, you're gonna be hearing that meme a lot between now and November 7 - so just roll over and take it just how you like it.

The juxtaposition of Clown and the aptly-named "Bobdevo" was something I couldn't have planned if I'd tried.

Now, now, little Mitch - you won't get to be our bitch if you get too uppity.

Are we not men?

He means it, too. Please help us.

Help me, please. This sick bastard is actually doing all the things Foley wrote about, and he thinks I'm enjoying it.

Cry me a river. I haven't seen his "dick" in years.

Such as it was.

I know where it's been going, sis-in-law; underage boy hookers.

They call him "little bullet".

I had syphilis when I was pregnant with Bob - I caught it from one of the Klansmen I was boffing for cigarettes when Bob's father (or at least the main contender) was in jail.

Really Swiftee... You need to find another hobby.

As you can see, Mitch, my family stands behind me 1000%. And they all voted for President Bush.

The dodging, the feinting, the twisting, the delicious SQUIRMING of the GOP as they try to explain away their hyprocracy and incompetence is a sight to behold!

They stumbled into war, they fumbled the occupation, they let New Orleans drown, and now they prove they can't manage 80 teenagers.

Had enough, America?

Had enough of you? Absolutely.

Report to North Korea on Monday morning. We've had enough.