Monday, October 02, 2006

Is Anyone This Creepy?

Is Republican pedophile Mark Foley's dirty money headed to the 6th District?

From the New York Times:

Mr. Foley, who served on the House Ways and Means Committee, was a prolific fund-raiser. His campaign account had a balance of $2.7 million at the end of August, according to reports filed with the Federal Election Commission.

Carl Forti, the communications director for the National Republican Congressional Committee, said Sunday that the committee would gladly accept Mr. Foley’s money or part of it to devote to House races. Mr. Foley already gave $100,000 to the committee in July, campaign records show, as part of the party’s Battleground Program, to which members are asked to contribute.

"The money is in the control of Mr. Foley," Mr. Forti said. "Whatever he decides to do with it is up to him."
We know the NRCC is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars in the 6th District to attack Maj. Duckworth and support Pete Roskam.

And we all remember how a righteous Roskam demanded that Maj. Duckworth return a $2100 campaign contribution from Rosie O’Donnell after O'Donnell compared fundamentalist Christians to fundamentalist Muslims.

The question voters in the 6th District now need answered is: "Will Peter Roskam join his party leaders and 'gladly accept Mr. Foley's money or part of it' to assist his campaign for Congress?"

We know that Roskam strongly opposes contributions from liberal women who say something stupid, but does he also oppose contributions from Republican men who solicit sex from children?

Originally posted at the So-Called "Austin Mayor" blog


grand old partisan 11:29 AM  


Last things first, why is it important in your last line to reference the fact that Rosie is a woman and Foley is a man? I mean, you’re not factually incorrect or anything, but the gender of the individuals in question seems like a curious thing to mention.

crash-dev 11:40 AM  

I think this is silly, but it is worth noting that while I expect posts like this from blogs and people on the street. but the whole Rosie and Duckworth thing was from Roskam's campaign.

And your headline is horrible. I assume the anyone is talking about Foley. and there are plenty of creepy people in this world and many probably much more so. I don't want to know any of the details. I want him to go to jail.

grand old partisan 11:50 AM  


Secondly, Foley’s troubles are entirely about an aspect of his personal life of which his contributors were unaware. The only sense in which it is “dirty” is by perceptive association. While there are other things he could do with that money that might win he some PR points, there is nothing inappropriate about him turning that money over to other Republican candidates who will continue to fight for the causes and initiatives that he championed as a legislator, and were presumably the reasons that money was donated to him in the first place.

Those Republican can – with clear conscious and sincerity – accept that money, in respect for Foley’s legislative accomplishments, while still condemning Foley’s deplorable personal behavior because the money has no connection to the scandal

On the other hand, Rosie’s donation was a form of political speech, and her other expressions of political speech have been offensive to a great number of 6th District residents. Can Duckworth claim to accept that money without acknowledging a respect for Rosie’s political beliefs? I think that’s a fair question.

Anonymous,  12:04 PM  

So hitting on 16-year-old boys is less offensive to GOP than speech.

grand old partisan 12:38 PM  

Anon - No, I think it's clearly more offensive. The point I was making was about the relationship between the money and the offense in the two examples SCAM juxtaposed. Accepting money originally donated to Foley by people who didn't know about his sick personal activities is not an inherent condonement of those activities. But Duckworth's acceptance of Rosie's money signals implicit respect for her political views, which are offensive to many.

crash-dev 12:54 PM  


Part of the deal in America is that we respect a wide array of viewpoints. Respect is different from agreement.

I'm not sure I believe in your level of accountability for campaign contributions. My understanding is that the one who gives the money is supporting the candidates views.

The other item that Roskam spoke out against was the amount of individual donations coming from outside the district. Taking money that was given to another candidate definitely seems like outside money to me.

Anonymous,  2:02 PM  

Accepting money from someone who campaigned as a champion of protecting children while being a predator sends a very strong message. Defending it also sends a strong message. A much stronger message than accepting money from a supporter who may have some views that, while out of the mainstream on not part of the NAMBLA playbook.

grand old partisan 2:48 PM  

Anon - the ironic part is that, as a legislator, Foley WAS a champion of protecting children.

I'm not defending the man's personal actions. I'm just saying that those actions don't make the money donated to his campaign "dirty."

Anonymous,  2:57 PM  

That was my point. He campaigned as such, he gave lip service to protecting children while he preyed on them. Anyone who takes cash from him is as suspect in my mind as anyone who would take cash from Jefferson.

For you to equate taking campaign money from a predator with taking campaign money from a supporter who holds views you happen to disagree with is insane.

grand old partisan 3:04 PM  

Anon - I'm not the one who brought Rosie's donation into this, SCAM did. If you have a problem with equating the two, talk to him.

Anonymous,  3:30 PM  

He brought it up in the context of how stupid it was for Roskam to make that demand of the Duckworth campaign, and you've attempted to make it an issue. Claiming that taking money from a guy trolling for sex from 16-year-olds is ok and taking money from Rosie O'Donnell is a problem is insane. Strange behavior from a party that spends so much time worrying about what people do in their bedrooms. Unless of course they're Republicans and have money, then it's just fine.

So-Called Austin Mayor 7:51 PM  

Claiming that taking money from a guy trolling for sex from 16-year-olds is ok and taking money from Rosie O'Donnell is a problem is insane.

'nuff said.

Anonymous,  10:15 PM  

But keep on repeating the mantra (that is killing the Catholic Church) that there is no link between homosexuality and pedophilia (or at least ebophilia)
If you keep on repeating in long enough and loud enough (paraphrasing Groebbels who was also homosexual) than people will start to believe it.

This scandal is about homosexuality.

So-Called Austin Mayor 8:13 AM  

Anon 10:15,

And I suppose this is about heterosexuality:

Park County, Colorado police on Thursday identified the gunman who took six girls hostage — killing one before turning the gun on himself — in a classroom Thursday as 53-year-old Duane R. Morrison.

Police also said armed law enforcement eventually moved in on Morrison because he was sexually "traumatizing" the victims during negotiations with police. FOX News has learned that the girls were not raped but inappropriate touching occurred.

"We have confirmed he did traumatize and assault our children ... this is why I made the decision I did. We had to go try to save them," said Park County Sheriff Fred Wegener said during a press conference. "I'll only say it's sexual in nature."

Please stop being an idiot at your earliest convenience.

the Other Anonymous,  9:24 AM  

The problem with Grand Old Partisan's logic -- that it's OK for Roskam to take money from Foley's campaign committee because the donors to the committee did not know about Foley's personal foibles -- is that we are not talking about donations to Roskam from these donors. Any transfer from the Foley committee would be made and authorized by Foley.

So, if it's fair to say that Duckworth is responsible or endorsing everything (or anything, for that matter) Rosie O'Donnell may have said by accepting a contribution from her, why isn't it equally fair to suggest that Roskam would be endorsing everything (or anything) Foley did?\

The only reason this becomes fair game is because Roskam started playing the guilt-by-association game.

Oh, and I won't comment much on 10:15pm anonymous's equation of homosexuality with pedophilia. On the other hand, I think we all are obliged to point out just how wrong and bigoted and evil that comment is.

CTA Bus Status

There was an error in this gadget
There was an error in this gadget

  © Blogger template The Professional Template by 2008

Back to TOP