October 02, 2006
Darcy Burner, Gunslinger

I'm all for women carrying guns, as I've noted more than once. But self-defense is about readiness, not macho posturing. Unless cheap political symbolism is the intent. A fulsomely sycophantic profile of the Democratic challenger to incumbent U.S. Rep. Dave Reichert (R-8th), Darcy Burner, in October's Seattle Woman magazine closes with this pearl:

Burner...is not someone to be messed with. After all, this is a woman who, while in college, got herself a concealed weapons permit after being stalked.

A photo op at a shooting range might be more convincing. The freelance writer is Kevin Henry, whose tagline notes he is also "cultural diversity coordinator for the City of Bellevue and the host of Voices of Diversity on KBCS-FM, 91.3." Kevin: may God grant you better outros in the future. You're gonna be stalked by the sheer crappiness of this one for a while, methinks.

Posted by Matt Rosenberg at October 02, 2006 08:25 AM | Email This
1. You can get a concealed weapons permit in MASSACHUSETTS? And they will even issue them to REPUBLICAN college students from Nebraska?

Posted by: Richard Pope on October 2, 2006 08:35 AM
2. Burner...is not someone to be messed with. After all, this is a woman who, while in college, got herself a concealed weapons permit after BEING STALKED.??!.

Stalked? Very doubtful.

Posted by: Brent in Ferndale on October 2, 2006 08:48 AM
3. Methinks this is another fish story.

Posted by: Steve_dog on October 2, 2006 08:51 AM
4. Darcy, stalked? What kind of sick, twisted individual could possibly WANT to stalk that? Perhaps, we should begin to refer to her as the "candidate that couldn't shoot straight."
"Don't mess with Darcy?" HHmmm.... Who's tougher, Sherrif Reichert or Manager Darcy? THAT'S a hard one.

Posted by: Hinton on October 2, 2006 08:53 AM
5. That's, uh, Sheriff. Sorry.

Posted by: Hinton on October 2, 2006 08:54 AM
6. Sounds like Kevin didn't get the memo, he referred to Burner as a product manager, not executive.

Posted by: Obi-Wan on October 2, 2006 09:00 AM
7. Dear Dipsy-Doodle Darcy:
Stalked? Show us the police report generated when you filed your complaint. Gimme the who, what, when, where and why.

Posted by: john425 on October 2, 2006 09:44 AM
8. Uh, maybe debating her wouldn't be such a good idea....

Posted by: katomar on October 2, 2006 09:44 AM
9. And she can flip-flop on gun rights as soon as she gets elected. THe Dems are calling off the anti-gun attack dogs long enough for Darcy to use this as a wedge. This is like Gregoire campaigning on "No New Taxes." And we all know what happened after she got elected...

Posted by: Jeff B. on October 2, 2006 09:46 AM
10. Jeff, I hope you don't mind the correction:

...This is like Gregoire campaigning on "No New Taxes." And we all know what happened after she WAS SWORN IN...

Posted by: Brent in Ferndale on October 2, 2006 09:55 AM
11. Is Reichert calling for a full investigation of the House leadership for covering up the activities of the sexual predator Mark Foley? Is the sheriff keeping your kids safe?

You can bet Darcy will when she's elected.

Posted by: ivan on October 2, 2006 10:12 AM
12. You can bet Darcy will when she's elected.

Darcy will do what the dnc hive mind tells her to do, just like all you dem drones. Buzz off.

Posted by: Steve_dog on October 2, 2006 10:15 AM
13. I'm sure that Darcy has taken a gun saftey class and has some range time in with her new gun. I'm also sure that she's a responsible gun owner and locks it up at night or when she doesn't have it with her. She's probably even a NRA member.

Posted by: Mikey on October 2, 2006 10:19 AM
14. Steve_dog @ 12:

Buzz off? Not bloody likely. Not till we run the Good Old Perverts out of Congress.

Do YOU defend covering up sexual predation of teenage Congressional pages?

Posted by: ivan on October 2, 2006 10:28 AM
15. "cultural diversity coordinator for the City of Bellevue"--story brought to you by undoubtedly another HUGE 2nd Amendment supporter, right?

Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on October 2, 2006 10:29 AM
16. How is this an issue? So what if someone applies for and receives a carry permit?

There must be something of merit to talk about in this race...good grief...

Posted by: CougarMom on October 2, 2006 10:30 AM
17. this Kevin dude, not a registered voter? unless that is, he uses middle name, or is the guy listed in Ellensburg

Posted by: righton on October 2, 2006 10:30 AM
18. #1: Yes you can get a carry permit in MA. They don't make it easy, but mere mortals can do so if they're persistent, unlike in NYC or LA where you have to be politically connected or a big celebrity.

Posted by: Kirk Parker on October 2, 2006 10:42 AM
19. OT - Pardon me, I feel compelled to indulge Ivan's bid to hijack the thread.

"Is Reichert calling for a full investigation of the House leadership for covering up the activities of the sexual predator Mark Foley? Is the sheriff keeping your kids safe?"

Ivan, Foley resigned. What he did was terrible, but your condemnation of others needs clarification. What was you position on Gerry Stubbs and Dan Crane. Did you demand their resignation? Did you demand a "full investigation"? Don't be so quick to throw out the hypocrite tag...

From ABCNews:

In 1983, two lawmakers were censured by the House of Representatives for having sexual relationships with teenage pages. Rep. Dan Crane, R-Ill., admitted to sexual relations with a 17-year-old female page, while Rep. Gerry Studds, D-Mass., admitted to sexual relations with a 17-year-old male page.

The ways each lawmaker handled the scandal -- and the consequences they faced afterward -- were very different. Crane apologized for his actions, saying, "I'm human" and "I only hope my wife and children will forgive me." He was subsequently voted out of office in 1984.

Studds, who was openly gay, said the relationship was consensual and charged that the investigation by the House Ethics Committee raised fundamental questions of privacy. He won re-election the following year -- in a more liberal district than Crane's -- and served in Congress until his retirement in 1996.


Republicans always seem to resign or get voted out and Democrats always seem to be re-elected....

Interesting how the Democratic theme comes out in Ivan's post - "..when elected, there will be an investigation..." Wiil government come to a standstill until all the promised investigations are exhausted?

Since Darcy has a concealed weapons permit, will she vote for, or against gun-control?

Posted by: SouthernRoots on October 2, 2006 10:51 AM
20. SouthernRoots - Nicely put and refuted. Alas, iban is too dim to understand very much of what you wrote. Perhaps if you included the words "suck" and "degenerate" you could reach him.

Bloated gas bag works too! ;'}

Posted by: alphabet soup on October 2, 2006 10:55 AM
21. Crane and Studds were both perverts who preyed on teenagers, and good riddance to both of them, whatever their party affiliation. But there was no coverup in either case.

In this case, Hastert, Shimkus, and Reynolds -- at least -- *knew* about Foley. They covered it up. *That's* what no parent should tolerate.

You think it's hijacking a thread about Reichert's re-election campaign to ask what his stand is on an investigation of his own leadership for knowing there was a predator in their midst and doing nothing about it?

I call BS on that! He ran as the sheriff, who would keep our kids safe! Now I want to know, what's his position on his caucus leadership covering up the activities of a predator.

You think I wouldn't be taking this position if it was a Democrat? You're wrong. I am the father of a teenager, and my child's safety comes before everything else in this world. I am a father first before I am a Democrat.

Now I want to know. What's Dave Reichert's position on the Republican House leadership's coverup of sexual perversion against teenagers in the halls of Congress?

Posted by: ivan on October 2, 2006 11:03 AM
22. Ivan,

I assume you also are continuing to call for the removal of Rep. Barney Frank from Congress; you know, the congressman who had a gay prostitution ring running out of his house and who fixed 33 parking tickets for his lover and staffer, Steve Gobie.

Or you fully denounce President Clinton and supported the impeachment of a man who abused his position of power over an intern.

Yeah, didn't think so... Notice how Foley's leaving? Yet Frank is still there. And Clinton still gets a pass from the Democratic party...

Posted by: Edmonds Dan on October 2, 2006 11:14 AM
23. Democrat Rep Jefferson is STILL in there even after stashing $90K of bribe money into the freezer. That is the difference. Democrats get caught, the party stands behind the criminals forever. When a Republican turns bad, they get the boot!

Posted by: pbj on October 2, 2006 11:17 AM
24. Edmonds Dan @ 22:

We're talking about a Republican coverup of sexual predation against MINORS, not sexual activity between consenting adults.

I don't care what consenting adults do, in either party. This is KIDS, and you can't spin that away.

Now I want to know: Will Reichert, or will he not, call for an investigation of the GOP leadership for covering up sexual predation against KIDS?

And if you are half a man, you'll call for it, too.

Posted by: ivan on October 2, 2006 11:27 AM
25. "And if you are half a man, you'll call for it, too."

Spoken as someone who is actively wasting the oxygen that 3-4 normal humans could be using...

iban, grab yourself a banana and quit hijacking the thread.

Posted by: alphabet soup on October 2, 2006 11:32 AM
26. I had a Massachusetts Class A "All Lawful Purposes" license. It's expired now, but I still have it in my wallet.

It probably helped that I applied for it in November 2001 while I was stationed at Hanscom AFB, and since I was living in the part of the base covered by the Bedford PD (rather than the Lexington or Concord PDs) where the chief was OK with the idea of the proletariat possessing firearms.

Posted by: gmcraff on October 2, 2006 11:54 AM
27. Not condoning what Foley did, but out of curiosity - to be a page, you must be at least 16. In D.C., the age of consent is 16. Why?

Apparently, some news agencies knew of this story months ago. Why did they sit on it for so long? Why didn't they expose all of this then - to protect innocent kids?

Why now? Protection of kids? - Not too sure that is the primary motive. Politics? Less than 40 days before an election? Maybe that's the primary motive.

Ivan, would "Darcy's investigation" look into that as well?

Posted by: SouthernRoots on October 2, 2006 11:59 AM
28. Ivan said:

Crane and Studds were both perverts who preyed on teenagers, and good riddance to both of them, whatever their party affiliation.

But it wasn't good riddance to Studds. He served until he retired in 1997. With Studds the gay encounter was deemed an consensual relationship. For Crane who had an encounter with a page of roughly the same age, it was enough to cause Crance to resign. For Studds is was a badge of honor. And the media was complicit.

It's interesting to wonder what might have happened if Foley had been a Democrat, or a Priest instead of a Republican.

Posted by: Jeff B. on October 2, 2006 12:56 PM
29. Ivan,

Hey, the page was 16, that's the age of consent in Washington, DC. This was between consenting adults, at least as much as Clinton and Lewinsky or Frank and Gobie.

So, are you going to be consistent? Or is it just the Republicans who are bad?

Personally, I think all 3 were terrible breaches of ethics, and should have resulted in expulsion. Oh wait, one is leaving right now... The other two - with the full backing of their party - fought tooth and nail to stick with it.

Pretty obvious which party takes these kinds of ethical problems seriously, isn't it?

Posted by: Edmonds Dan on October 2, 2006 01:03 PM
30. Is this a video of Darcy?


Posted by: Simon Trent on October 2, 2006 01:07 PM
31. There is an accusation that the leadership knew about this, but also a denial. The idea that the leadership knew about this is NOT in concrete.

Democrats motto when dealing with rapists, murderers, drug dealers, and even terrorists is "innocent til proven guilty."

But when an accusation is made against the republican leadership, it's "guilty as charged" I guess.

I wish these guys were half as eager to condemn terrorists as they are denny hastert.

Posted by: johnny on October 2, 2006 01:08 PM
32. Jeff B. @ 28:

The GOP controlled both houses of Congress after the 1994 election. Studds was there until 1997. Don't imply that I defend Studds. I don't. Not him and not Crane. The GOP Congress enabled Studds, just as the leadership of this Congress enabled Foley.

You can't whitewash the GOP Congress' lack of oversight here. I don't care if the perp was a D or an R. A perp against minors is a perp, period.

But that's the Republicans for you. That's what you appear to defend: No child's behind left behind.

Posted by: ivan on October 2, 2006 01:09 PM
33. Spare me your outrage, Ivan. You pick and choose your condemnation on a purely partisan basis and you know it.

And good grief, talk about Dems and glass houses. With all the murderous, racist and bribe-taking pols on your side of the aisle, I'd think you'd be less eager to wallow in this slop.

By the way, finding inappropriate e-mails and telling the congressman to cease all contact is hardly what I'd call a cover up. Apparently the Left predictions have come to pass. Chimpy Hitler's America has resulted in the end of due process.

Lastly, it is YOUR responsibility to provide for the safety of your children, not anybody elses.

Posted by: jimg on October 2, 2006 01:12 PM
34. Ivan,

I'm not implying that you defend Studds. I'm implying that Dems didn't call for his removal and he didn't step down. Thus, for the Dem leadership it's OK when it's a Dem and *not* OK when it's a Republican. Don't try to hide your partisanship, it's as big as you.

Posted by: Jeff B. on October 2, 2006 01:28 PM
35. Jeff B. @ 34:

What part of "The Republicans controlled the House after the 1994 election" do you fail to understand?

The Republicans were the leadership while Studds was in Congress.

Besides that, what is THIS Republican leadership doing about the coverup of THIS perp's activities in THIS Congress?

Not what are they doing about the perp? The perp has resigned already, having checked into alcohol rehab, as if that had anything to do with it. There are a whole lot of alkys who don't molest children.

But he's not the issue. The issue is that YOUR party's leadership knew about THIS perp, in THIS Congress, and didn't deal with him.

No. Worse yet, they ALLOWED him to work on a committee writing laws to protect the very children that he was molesting or trying to molest.

Kiss the security moms goodbye, and I hope everybody else, you perp-enabling scumbags. Your party is unfit to govern anybody at any level, if this is what you defend, or try to rationalize. And you prove it every day.

Posted by: ivan on October 2, 2006 01:54 PM
36. What part of big f-ing deal do you not understand? If we were to "deal with" every degenerate in Congress there wouldn't be any Dhimmicrats left. Is that what you want blimpo?

Go eat another banana and leave the thinking to those what can....

Posted by: alphabet soup on October 2, 2006 02:00 PM
37. So Ivan,

Gonna condemn President Clinton for the EXACT SAME THING you're excoriating Mark Foley for? Both abused their position to gain sexual favors from people much younger than themselves - legal in terms of age of consent, but still much younger.

Both abused their position to gain sexual favors from subordinates - an intern and a page. Highly unethical behavior (the kind of behavior that gets CEOs like Stonecipher at Boeing booted, or gets you dishonorably discharged from the military).

ONE of those mentioned in my first paragraph has been forthright enough to resign amidst the scandal, even when his re-election was a slam-dunk (money lead AND previous margins of victory). The other person mentioned still claims - along with his party and supporters - that it was no big deal and should have been ignored...

Then after you reconcile that, you need to take Rep. Frank to the woodshed for the same issue at a minimum; and keep in mind that running a brothel is not just unethical but flat out illegal!

So Ivan, if you want to pretend to have ANY shred of consistency you're gonna have to publicly condemn President Clinton and Barney Frank for their serious lapses of ethics, and call for them to step down immediately from any public role. And call for the Democratic party leadership to publicly condemn both for their actions.

Barring that, it'll be pretty obvious you're just a Democrat shill, not interested in actually cleaning up politics but only in power.

About as unethical as you can get, IMHO...

Posted by: Edmonds Dan on October 2, 2006 02:16 PM
38. The question is:

Do YOU defend Hastert, Shimkus, and Reynolds covering up their knowledge of Foley's activities NOW, in THIS Congress, not what happened years ago.

I take a hard line on sex offenses against minors, and those who enable them, PERIOD. I am entirely consistent about that.

Posted by: ivan on October 2, 2006 02:21 PM

Gerry Studds and Dan Crane were caught in 1983. Their offenses with teenage pages were committed some time earlier. Congress was controlled by Democrats at the time. The House Ethics Committee merely wanted to reprimand them. Newt Gingrich wanted both of them expelled. The House voted to censure both of them instead. Dan Crane was defeated for re-election in 1984. Gerry Studds was re-elected up through 1994 and served until the end of 1996. The GOP House starting in January 1995 had nothing to do with enabling Gerry Studds -- his page affair, by the way, was in the early 1970's. In any event, you don't get double jeopardy. Studds was disciplined (censured) in 1983, and then re-elected numerous times. The Republicans couldn't have done anything to Studds in 1995-96 even if they had wanted to.

Ivan, you need to CHILL OUT for once and take some time to think. You have a lot of things you can criticize the GOP about concerning Mark Foley. If you want to have any credibility, don't even think about blaming the GOP for Gerry Studds.

Posted by: Richard Pope on October 2, 2006 02:25 PM
40. I need a lecture on credibility from Richard Pope about as badly as your fire department needs arson.

Posted by: ivan on October 2, 2006 02:41 PM
41. Ivan posted:

The question is:

Do YOU defend Hastert, Shimkus, and Reynolds covering up their knowledge of Foley's activities NOW, in THIS Congress, not what happened years ago.

IF there was a cover up, sure. However, it appears that there wasn't a coverup. Rather, a parent of a page forwarded an e-mail to Hastert. There wasn't anything sexual in the e-mail, but it was a bit weird. So Hastert began an investigation.

It was only recently that the sexual INSTANT MESSAGES (which are NOT part of the public record as e-mails are) came to light. As soon as that happened, the hammer came down on Foley.

So, do you have ANYTHING to say there was a coverup? Before you call for the heads of people, you should at least figure out if there's anything there worth beheading them over.

Like President Clinton's admission of sexual misconduct with an intern.

Or Barney Frank's censure about fixing parking tickets for his lover, and the prostitution ring run from his house.

I take a hard line on sex offenses against minors, and those who enable them, PERIOD. I am entirely consistent about that.

Sure. So who were the minors in this case? Once again, US Congressional pages must be 16 years old at the start of their service. Which also happens to be the age of consent in Washington, DC.

This is NOT about sexual abuse of minors. This is about misuse of position over subordinates.

Unless you have facts otherwise? Or just your bomb-throwing DNC talking points?

Face it - Mark Foley did nothing that President Clinton didn't do. You'll idolize and worship the second man, but condemn the first for the EXACT same actions.

Why? Because you simply cannot see the world through anything but your Democrat-colored glasses...

So be consistent - if you're going to berate Mark Foley for his sexual misconduct, also berate President Clinton and Barney Frank for theirs.

Just say it. It won't kill you. Admit all three are sleazes who misused their offices to get their rocks off.

Posted by: Edmonds Dan on October 2, 2006 02:48 PM
42. Edmonds Dan @ 41:

It appears that there was no coverup? In your dreams, boyo, in your dreams.

From today's Charleston WV Daily Mail: Remember, this is a Republican talking.

Capito says she was not told about congressman's e-mails

Rep. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va., says she was not told about suggestive e-mails that a Florida congressman sent to a 16-year-old former Capitol page, even though she is one of three representatives who oversee the page program.

On Friday, Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla., resigned after ABC News revealed those e-mails and other, more sexually explicit Internet-based instant messages between Foley and former male pages.

Several high-ranking House Republicans have known about the e-mails for months, including Rep. John Shimkus, R-Ill., chairman of the House Page Board.

Late last year, Shimkus met with Foley about the e-mails. But Shimkus never told Capito or the board's other member, Rep. Dale Kildee, D-Mich., about them until Friday, according to all three.

"There's only three of us on the page board. I feel that we should have been informed," Capito said. "I'm absolutely disgusted by what I'm hearing. I was caught totally unaware."

Foley sent the e-mails to a former page from Louisiana about one year ago. Foley wrote, "send me an email pic of you as well" and "what do you want for your birthday coming up?" according to ABC News.

Capito said she would have been very concerned if she had read those e-mails.

"I don't think it would pass the sniff test," she said. "Even asking those questions -- that is not normal between a 52-year-old adult and a 16-year-old. It's not like they're family friends or anything. I think it would raise some serious questions. But I wasn't given that opportunity."

Late last year, Shimkus and former House Clerk Jeff Tandahl met privately with Foley to talk about the e-mails, but did not tell the other House Page Board members or launch an investigation.

"My evaluation was there's no smoking gun here," Shimkus told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch newspaper. "At the time, that e-mail had no significance ... other than 'Mark, stay away from this kid; this doesn't look good.'"

Posted by: ivan on October 2, 2006 03:17 PM
43. Does darcy Dillenger have a carry permit in WA? Would that be a public record?

Posted by: Cheryl on October 2, 2006 03:48 PM
44. Ivan is so unhinged from reality that he must be a Karl Rove plant in Seattle to make the Democrats look bad.

Keep it up, Ivan. We love you. Every post creates a new GOP voter.

God Bless Karl Rove...

Posted by: Hank on October 2, 2006 04:00 PM
45. Sorry for interrupting the discussion about resigned former Rep. Foley, but this thread should be about Darcy Burner and the gun issue.

Based upon this new information, she should be forced to voice her views on how she would vote on gun control issues. She is so used to asking "the hard questions", it is now time to answer a question.

She has been saying the same "direction of the country" crap for too long. And if I read again about her needing to be in Congress so her kid can have a life, I'm going to puke.

Like a previous poster, I find it hard to believe that anyone would stalk her. She is a very unattractive woman, and dare I state based on the three ugly pantsuits she owns, has no taste in clothes. However, she was a member of the Harvard Science Fiction Club while attending school in the 1990's, so who knows what kind of dorks she was hanging around with. I'm sure one of the lonely loonies thought she was a hot babe.

It is interesting to note that she was known as " a liberal activist" by fellow society members. She apparently didn't know what a quorum is either.

Go here to read:

Her name was Darcy Gibbons then.

I find some of the other assertions made by her in the Seattle Woman piece more interesting than the gun thing.

Like how "proud she is of Queen Christine and Useless Patty.

Or how she "worked for 12 years at companies like Microsoft" and was thought of as a "glorified soccer mom".

She only worked for about a year after becoming a mother, and most of her short lived jobs at small software companies were when she was still a student.

What the heck is she trying to portray with that kind of rhetoric?

This person is totally useless. I know. She has already "represented" me as the voluntary president of the Ames Lake Community Club.

Whatever you do, don't vote for this woman, she is an idiot.

Excuse me, a glorified idiot.

Additionally, for what it's worth, she has been running now for 15 or so months, and has never door-belled in her own neighborhood. Just some food for thought.

Posted by: ameslaker on October 2, 2006 04:13 PM
46. What Darcy needs is an about-to be-married guy to sleep with. Reichert wouldn't stand a chance.

Posted by: Organization Man on October 2, 2006 07:02 PM
47. I think the stalker has been revealed- ameslaker! If she never gets around your neighborhood, you seem to have seen her an awful lot. And I'm not sure what intelligent person would want to doorbell Ames Lake with all those long driveways. One might might try using that doohickey with the cord and receiver. Especially since anyone involved in that community could simply show up to a meeting.

Posted by: Ben Diamond on October 2, 2006 07:11 PM
48. Darcy better be careful, with that "Doe in the Headlights" look she has, she could end up tied across the hood of a pickup truck headed for a meat locker. All of those hicks with doohickey door latches and long driveways are quick on the trigger right Ben?

Posted by: Smokie on October 2, 2006 07:28 PM
49. I think Mark Foley may have committed some crimes. It may very well be that 16 is the age of sexual consent in Washington, D.C. And it may be merely morally disgusting (as opposed to illegal) for a 50-something year old adult in D.C. to have sex with a 16 year old minor child. Personally, I think the age of sexual consent should be 18 years of age, with some leeway when the parties are relatively close in years (let's say no more than 5 years apart if the child is 16 or 17, and less age difference if the child is younger).

However, the age of sexual consent isn't 16 everywhere. In Florida, it is 18 years of age, with the exception that someone up to 24 or so can legally partner with a 16 or 17 year old. Some of Foley's e-mails seems to have come from Florida or gone to Florida. Other states may have been involved, in which the ultimate relationship may have also be illegal.

And there are lots of laws that make communicating with a minor for immoral purposes illegal. Some laws only apply when the ultimate sexual relationship would be illegal, and other laws apply even if the minor is above the relevant age of consent. I think the federal laws that Mark Foley helped write apply to all minors under the age of 18 years, regardless of the circumstances.

Beyond that, Foley's behavior was just plain disgusting. And I would say that it was clearly sexual harassment -- a civil tort and unlawful form of discrimination -- regardless of whether it was a criminal offense.

I WILL AGREE WITH IVAN WEISS ON THIS ONE! I just hope that when Democrats have a similar scandal (and the law of averages says they will in the future), that Ivan is consistent with his position.

How about some legal reforms in Washington? How do Ivan Weiss' three Democrat legislators from his 34th district stand on increasing the age of sexual consent in Washington to 18 years of age, and making sure that all sexual communications with minors in Washington are illegal?

Posted by: Richard Pope on October 2, 2006 07:29 PM
50. @45: Wrong again fake neighbor. Darcy and her campaign have canvassed her neighborhood, her precinct, her LD and the vast majority of the 8th district more than once. In fact, according to her campaign, Darcy, her staff, and her massive army of local vollunteers have knocked on more doors than any campaign in memory, including statewide campaigns.

Even if you did live near Darcy, you would have been skipped as an obvious partisan.

Please, please oh please keep calling a woman who was managing multi-million-dollar accounts in an international office and managing hundreds of employees before age 30 an idiot. See if anyone takes you seriously.

Posted by: Sorry Charlie on October 2, 2006 07:40 PM
51. Pope @ 49:

Anyone can ask them via the e-mail addresses at their legislative Web sites. But you knew that.

Posted by: ivan on October 2, 2006 07:40 PM
52. Even if you did live near Darcy, you would have been skipped as an obvious partisan.

Posted by Sorry Charlie at October 2, 2006 07:40 PM

Wow I am glad she got OUT and let herself known to EVERYONE.

I can assume by your post that she only canvassed those that WOULDN'T slam the door on her face. Way to get a canidates message out, just canvass the district for only pure party votes.

BTW Was she "packin" when she was a door bellin?

Posted by: chris on October 2, 2006 08:00 PM
53. Sorry Charlie, back in the fray lying again. How's that appearance count going from the other day? Hundreds of appearances per month right? I have relatives in Carnation, North Bend, Snoqualmie. No flyers, no public meetings advertised except to Dems. You make excuses but no arguements for the support of your pathetic unqualified candidate. If shes not reaching out to "partisans" she not really interested in representing ALL of the people then is she?

Posted by: Smokie on October 2, 2006 08:05 PM
54. Funny Smokie, I've noticed the same thing. My contacts are spread from Snoqualmie & North Bend south clear to Eatonville. No one has seen her or her little warthogs, most don't even recognise her name. This is gonna be fun!

Posted by: alphabet soup on October 2, 2006 08:52 PM
55. To settle this once and for all; I suggest a duel between Reichert and Burner at 20 paces - using pistols that fire paintballs.

Posted by: KS on October 2, 2006 09:01 PM
56. It's nice to be recognized for upsetting wingers like Smokie on a regular basis.

Darcy and her organizers have been to more events and more doorsteps than the Reichert campaign. Period.

Ames/Chris/Smoke: Unless you are claiming that she would have won your vote had she visited you, Darcy and her campaign were correct in prioritizing mainstream, undecided voters over party-line wingers like you and me.

When you see him, please ask Reichert to send me some of his famous frank mail. He has ignored me with his "official congressional communications" because I am an obvious partisan and his spending of taxpayer dollars would fail to win my vote.

Posted by: Sorry Charlie on October 2, 2006 09:08 PM
57. OK Ben Diamond and Sorry Charlie,

So I'm am the stalker, and am the fake neighbor - eh?

The truth is - I live on Ames Lake.

I can't be a partisan, or Larry Springer would not have door-belled me two weeks ago. Or Laura Ruderman, who in the past has been almost as permanent a fixture at my front stoop as my doorbell.

And as far as the long driveways are concerned, I get magazine salespeople, charity donation solicitors, pollsters, and even PIRG people coming to my door. I don't get many trick or treaters, however, I guess the Burner campaign falls in that category.

And, why, as a partisan, would I be receiving the "Wave Goodbye" to Social Security mailer crap from the DCCC?

Darcy Burner was the president of our community club from May 2005 until April 2006. This by the way, is not an elected position.

During her term as president, a very serious issue of land encroachment resurfaced after years of law suit threats and the community being very unhappy.

The way in which she handled this issue is my problem with her.

She would not allow opinions that disagreed with her own to be heard at a meeting .

She yelled down dissenters and then after the meeting lied to the community about what transpired at that meeting.

It is truly amazing to me that someone who has actual experience with this woman when given a tiny bit of power, and how she dealt with it, is dismissed as a partisan, or somebody who just doesn't like her.

She is an idiot.

And I am very tied into the Ames Lake Community.

She, or her minions have never campaigned here,

The reason is, most people who know her, know she is totally ineffectual to do anything.

Posted by: ameslaker on October 2, 2006 09:20 PM
58. Sorry Charlie, if you didn't get a mailer then you probably don't live in the district, like most of Darcy's supporters. Darcy will not win because she is scared of her neighbors, she doesn't know them, she has no idea what is important to them. As to how many events and appearances that you claim Darcy has been to you claimed she has been to hundreds each month. You do the math, and yes you are a liar.

Now has her campaign been out, sure while Reichert is away, in session, actually working. Darcy, unemployed mom, has a little more time to mooch money from Liberals in California and Chicago which is where most of her support comes from. Out of district and out of State. How that going to play with the home folks? Sorry Charlie you really are starting to smell like rotten tuna.

Posted by: Smokie on October 2, 2006 09:22 PM
59. Ivan, Ivan, Ivan... And Richard (I'm shocked a judicial candidate would convict so quickly in absence of facts)...

Please see a good review of the facts in this case. The e-mails the leadership knew about were peculiar, but not extreme. A warning was issued after the e-mails were found.

AS SOON AS the salacious INSTANT MESSAGES (not e-mails as the MSM is so intent on mischaracterizing) were supplied, the House leadership immediately moved to ask Foley to resign.

Got it? There WAS NO COVERUP! You're trying to make one, but that requires you to lie outright - to twist the truth beyond a pretzel.

And since you're SO eager to jump on the leadership and Foley, why don't you do the same about Frank and Clinton? Hmmm? Silence?

That alone shows you are nothing more than a DNC-puppet... No morals, no actual beliefs, just whatever you can try to hope to use so your "party" regains some power.

If both of you were so sure of the coverup, then show some facts. Barring that, I assume that Richard you'll at least be man enough to admit you may have jumped the gun. Ivan I expect to just plug his ears and continue along is merry way...

Posted by: Edmonds Dan on October 2, 2006 09:45 PM
60. Bring on the paintballs - pistols at 20 paces - Reichert will splatter her !

Posted by: KS on October 2, 2006 10:00 PM
61. Darcy has given me zero reason to believe that she'll fight terror better than the Sheriff. I have every reason to believe she will leave us worse off in that area---especially since she admitted to John Carlson on the air that the democrats have no plan for it. We will be wearing burkas and she will appease rather than protect. NO WAY> This is THE issue of our time. Way too important to leave to this woman.
And I still don't understand why she'd rather roam the halls of congress rather than be with her tiny kid. You couldn't pay me to abandon my pre-schoolers like that.

Posted by: Misty on October 3, 2006 01:41 AM
62. Edmonds Dan @ 59:

I see. I'm a DNC puppet, but Clarice Feldman is the source of truth and light, and not just another partisan hack?

Shimkus says he knew about this a year ago. Capito says she was never told. And Kildee, well, he's just a Democrat, so he had no need to know.

And you continue to insist that there was no coverup? Peculiar, but not extreme? BEE EFFIN ESS, buddy-o! BEE EFFIN ESS!

Your party leadership is a bunch of pathetic falures, and your attemped whitewash of their conduct is likewise a pathetic failure.

No child's behind left behind. That's what you stand for.

Posted by: ivan on October 3, 2006 04:27 AM
63. Ivan, "Shimkus says he knew about this a year ago". Knew about what? the EMails, or the IMs?

If you're talking about the emails, what, specifically, in them is actionable and illegal?

If you're talking about the IMs, I can agree with you. Foley's out. Good riddance.

Who else knew? Did some Dems know? If so, why didn't they lodge an ethics complaint? Just for politics? Foley has been there 12 years. Surely, some of the highly perceptive and observant Democrats serving with him would have noticed untoward behaviour and exposed him before now, especially if it was as rampant as some blogs and news stories claim. If they didn't, why not? Weren't they concerned then?

Brian Ross said he had this information in August, but was too busy to get to it then. If it was a cause for the world to end and for the GOP to be put to death, why was it OK for it to be held until October, before th mid-terms? Politics?

You and other Dems have gotten yourself all into a lynch mob lather "for the children", but why do the Dems block meaningful child predator laws like Jessica's Law?

Posted by: SouthernRoots on October 3, 2006 06:35 AM
64. Shimkus knew and Hastert knew. And yet they continued to allow Foley to serve on the committee dealing with sexual abuse of minors.

Now try to justify that, will you? Justify Hastert for me. I dare you.

Posted by: ivan on October 3, 2006 06:55 AM
65. Ivan - Knew what? You still didn't answer my first question. Emails or IM? Or don't your "October surprise" talking points cover that question?

So far as anyone knows, Foley "never had sexual relations with that..." page.

Save your unbalanced rage for those perverts that actually do commit physical crimes on our kids.

What about Jessica's law in this state? Why are you Dems so against it?

Oh, it doesn't create a scandal just before an election? Got it.

Posted by: SouthernRoots on October 3, 2006 07:10 AM
67. I agree with Ivan about investigating a potential coverup. We already know that the REPUBLICAN Leadership knew about the E-MAILS 10 months ago and dealt with them at that time. What I want to know is what the DEMOCRAT Leadership knew about the INSTANT MESSAGES, and when did they know it? And when they found out, who did they contact about it? Did they hold that knowledge until 5 weeks before the election for partisan purposes? This could be fun.

Bill H

Posted by: Bill H on October 3, 2006 09:08 AM
68. "The issue is that YOUR party's leadership knew about THIS perp, in THIS Congress, and didn't deal with him."

It is the DEMOCRAT PARTY that cannot deal with THEIR people. William Jefferson (D-LA) is a crook that is STILL in congress!!!!!!!!!

Apparently Democrats can find time to kick Joe Lieberman out of their party, but someone who is taking bribe money with $90K in his refrigerator, well that is A-OK with Democrats - the party of corruption.

Posted by: pbj on October 3, 2006 11:07 AM
69. Murtha Caught Lying About His Involvment In Abscam

For more than 26 years, Congressman John P. "Jack" Murtha (D-Penn.) has not been truthful about his involvement in Abscam, court records and the complete video of his meeting with the FBI show.

In recent years, only a 13-second video of Murtha's videotaped meeting with the FBI agents was publicly available. TAS has obtained a copy of the full, original video from a source close to the Abscam investigation on the condition of anonymity. The court transcript is publicly available at the National Archives. (To see the full video, click here. For a transcript of the meeting, click here.)

Murtha has repeatedly maintained his innocence in the Abscam sting operation, even as recently as this year. However, his November 20, 1980 testimony in the trial of Congressmen Frank Thompson (D-N.J.) and John Murphy (D-N.Y.) and the FBI's complete undercover video of his January 7, 1980 meeting with its agent and informant reveal a man showcasing his political influence and apparently tempted to take a $50,000 bribe. On the tape, Murtha appears eager to arrange his own, long-term deal with the supposed representatives of Arab sheiks, and to cut out Thompson and Murphy. His testimony reveals that after his January 7 meeting, he looked into helping the sheiks enter the country, rather than contacting the FBI or the Ethics Committee, of which he was a member. Through the years, Murtha has maintained that he only met with the FBI agents to discuss investments in his district. His testimony, the video, and the cases of other congressmen snared in Abscam suggest that "investments in the district" was a common Abscam defense for those accused of bribery.

Read it all and watch the video

Posted by: pbj on October 3, 2006 11:15 AM
70. Ivan,

Hastert knew of the e-mails, spoke with the page and his parents, and cautioned Foley to watch it. Nothing illegal or too unseemly in the e-mails (have you even read them yet?), just cause for caution. Which was given.

AS SOON AS the IMs came to light, Foley was busted and ousted. By Hastert.

Now, how about Pelosi and William Jefferson? You know, actual ILLEGAL actions with finances, yet the Democratic leadership rallies around that crook.

Or what about Reid, Pelosi, and the rest when President Clinton ADMITTED to using his position of authority in an unethical manner with Monica Lewinsky? Rather than call for his impeachment or ouster, they said it was "just about sex".

So, are you EVER going to be a man and call for shame and the ouster of Barney Frank (prostitution ring running out of his house) and President Clinton (convicted of perjury and admitted abuser of his position for sexual favors) since you seem so hell-bent on Foley?

Just asking for consistency. Failure means you really are a DNC shill...

Posted by: Edmonds Dan on October 3, 2006 12:31 PM
71. Was she being stalked by talk show radios?

Posted by: Michael on October 3, 2006 02:40 PM
72. >Do YOU defend covering up sexual predation
>of teenage Congressional pages?

Nancy Pelosi certainly did! How long did the Democrats wait to release this information so they could time it to 7 weeks before the election? How long did they keep Congressional Pages at risk for political gain?

We want to know what Pelosi knew, and when she knew it!!!

Posted by: Gunslinger on October 3, 2006 03:22 PM
73. Rumor has it that the Dems knew about it in Nov 2005, 13 months ago.....

Posted by: Chris on October 3, 2006 06:26 PM
74. It would appear that all that righteous indignation gave our friend blimpy (AKA iban) an appetite, and he's gone off to graze on an antelope.

Thanks for the yuk~yuks iban...

Posted by: alphabet soup on October 3, 2006 08:17 PM
75. Read it and weep, Soup, Edmonds Dan, and the rest of you child rape apologists. This is the NEW YORK POST, not some left-wing rag.

By NILES LATHEM Post Correspondent

October 4, 2006 -- WASHINGTON - Shocking new Internet messages surfaced yesterday, revealing that former Rep. Mark Foley engaged in online sex with a male high-school page - while taking a break from an important vote on the House floor.

The graphic April 2003 exchange between Foley, the disgraced former chairman of the House Missing and Exploited Children's Caucus, and the underage former House page is one of two new sets of instant messages that were obtained by ABC News and published on its Web site.

"Ok[sic] I better go vote . . . did you know you would have this effect on me," writes Maf54, identified as Foley, after the two apparently had what they described to each other earlier as orgasms, according to ABC.

"You go vote . . . I don't want to keep you from doing your job," the teen responds.

"Can I have a kiss goodnight," Foley asks.

"*:- KISS," the teen responds.

In another stunning development, Robert Novak today reveals in his column - published in PostOpinion on Page 31 - 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.

Novak writes, "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."

In a second set of cyber chats, Foley, author of 15 pieces of legislation designed to protect children from sexual predators, invited yet another teen to his house to drink alcohol, and acknowledged that he was fully aware the boy is underage, according to a partial transcript.

The new shocking instant messages emerged on a day of dramatic twists in an already lurid sex scandal that has rocked the halls of Congress and threatens to reverberate in elections five weeks from now.

Foley's Palm Beach lawyer, David Roth, dropped a bombshell last night, saying his client was sexually abused by a "clergyman" when he was 13 to 15 years old and has carried that "shame" around with him for four decades, affecting his mental health.

"Mark Foley wants you to know he is a gay man," Roth told reporters, adding his client "continues to offer no excuse whatsoever for his conduct."

The lawyer said that making the abuse public "is part of Mark's recovery."

Foley checked himself into an undisclosed clinic Sunday for treatment for alcoholism and mental illness.

U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez said yesterday the Justice Department has opened a preliminary inquiry - a precursor to a full scale probe - into the Foley e-mail scandal.

"We are responding to requests to look at the facts," Gonzalez said yesterday. "Obviously, we take these allegations very seriously."

And there were signs last night that the new revelations could be just the tip of the iceberg, with more ex-congressional pages stepping forward.

Sources told The Post that more former pages and other youngsters who held jobs on Capitol Hill are surfacing with tales about Foley - and at least two more members of Congress.

Former pages have set up a link on the social networking Web site Facebook, inviting members to share past experiences with Foley. The name of the site is "I was a House page and Mark Foley totally weirded me out."

The scandal threatens to turn off the conservative Christian base that is so important for Republican turnout in elections. It has also led to calls for the resignation of House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), who was aware of some of Foley's inappropriate e-mail contacts with minors last spring, but chose not to act against him.

The latest instant messages published on ABC News' Web site are among 52 new exchanges involving Foley and two different students under 18 that the network said it recently obtained.

Foley was already under fire for exchanging sexually explicit e-mails and instant messages with at least two more underage ex-congressional pages.

The latest exchange took place in April 2003, when the House was voting on HR 1559, the Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act.

After saying, "I miss you," Maf54 wrote that the House was still voting and then the exchange veers into heavy sexual content as both appear to write about masturbating while chatting online, ABC said. The second set of instant messages, also with an underage boy, is equally shocking and could further expose Foley to serious criminal charges.

Foley invited the unidentified teen to have "a few drinks" during a Veterans Day weekend.

"Your[sic] not old enough to drink," Maf54 writes.

"shhh,"[sic] the teenager replies.

"we[sic] may need to drink at my house so we don't get busted," Maf54 replied.


Posted by: ivan on October 4, 2006 09:52 AM
76. Ivan,

Great! I'm glad the sick bastard is out of Congress. I'm glad the Republican leadership cracked down on him and forced him out. Note that these are coming to light AFTER he's already gone!

And you still haven't shown that Hastert and others knew about these IMs prior to this last week. All indications seem to be one questionable e-mail, Hastert tells him to knock it off in April 2005, and Foley does so. When this other stuff came to light, out goes Foley...

So where's the problem that hasn't been resolved?

And when are you going to raise the same ire about Barney Frank, President Clinton, or William Jefferson? Or what about other issues like that wonderful ABSCAM participant and hero of the Democrats, John Murtha?

See, I'm willing to call Foley a scum, and I'm glad he's out of the Congress. Oh, I also wish we could get equivalent scum like Frank, Jefferson, and Murtha out as well, but their leadership seems to like to keep scum around...

Posted by: Edmonds Dan on October 4, 2006 10:34 AM
77. Edmonds Dan @ 76:

What part of this are you refusing to understand? Harping on the IMs won't save you. Hastert, Boehner, Reynolds, and Shimkus knew about the e-mails and wouldn't tell the rest of the page board. Is that responsible?

They wouldn't tell Capito, and she's a Republican.

They all covered up for Foley, because he raised money for the party. Hastert is a former high school teacher. Can you tell me with a straight face that he dealt with this "problem" forthrightly?

Harping on Barney Frank and Jefferson won't save you, nor will your pathetic bleats for "consistency." Jefferson and Barney Frank did not do what Foley did. There is no false equivalency here. You are making excuses for the lowest form of human scum, child sex predators and those who enable them.

Hastert, Boehner, Reynolds, and Shimkus must go. The more you defend them, the worse you look. Now excuse me, I have to go take a shower.

Posted by: ivan on October 4, 2006 11:49 AM
78. iban - try kerosene...

Posted by: alphabet soup on October 4, 2006 12:11 PM
79. Ivan is the poster child for a liberal democrat. Taking a shower at 11:49 in the morning.

Why don't you go get a job. If you had one, maybe your political thinking would change.

Posted by: ameslaker on October 4, 2006 12:11 PM
80. Junior high school retorts won't save you either.

Posted by: ivan on October 4, 2006 12:16 PM
81. Ivan,

Let's sum up:

1. We have a Congressman hitting on pages (no allegations of physical contact mind you, just words), and when it's found out his party boots him out.

2. We have a Congressman fixing tickets and letting a brothel run out of his apartment, and his party protects him.

3. We have a President hitting on - and performing sexual acts with - an intern, his subordinate. And impeached on perjury. And is still worshipped by his party.

4. We have a Congressman accepting nearly $100,000 in bribes, and he's defended by his party.

5. We have a Congressman neck-deep in the ABSCAM scandal, and he's defended by his party as a hero.

So, tell me which one was handled right?

I know, I know, you'll deflect and refuse to answer. Which just makes your hypocrisy even worse.

If you're going to condemn the Republican leadership for their actions in handling Foley, then you have NO CHOICE but to condemn Pelosi, Reid, and the other Democratic leaders for their handling of the other 4 issues listed here.

Unless, of course, you're purely partisan. Why do I even ask...

Posted by: Edmonds Dan on October 4, 2006 02:26 PM
82. Edmonds Dan @ 81:

You have a choice too. Do you choose to defend Hastert, Boehner, Reynolds, and Shimkus for allowing a Congressman who they knew was a sexual predator to continue to work with legislation dealing with sexual predation of teenagers?

That's what you're doing. That's what your party is doing. That's what your pathetic excuse for a president is doing.

I don't care about you. Your vote is counted. I don't have to win any debating points with you on some right-wing cult's blog.

The voters will judge. And I'll see you in hell.

Posted by: ivan on October 4, 2006 03:31 PM
83. Say, speaking of convicted child sex predators, how is good old Mel Reynolds doing these days? Wasn't it Wild Bill Clinton that commuted his sentence? You are already in Hell Ivan, we have all seen your picture!

Posted by: huh? on October 4, 2006 03:45 PM
84. Ivan,

So, can you prove that Hastert et al. actually knew he was a predator? Or is this just one of your wild anti-homosexual fantasies?

Do you condone your party's favorite President pardoning a CONVICTED child molester of a Congressman (Mel Reynolds)?

Do you condone your party's support for a Congressman running a brothel out of his house (Barney Frank)?

Do you condone your party's support for a President engaging in unethical sexual acts with a subordinate - WHILE ON THE JOB (Clinton)?

See, this isn't just about sex (as the Democrats would have us believe).

Foley was booted as soon as the seriousness of the issues came to light. No proof otherwise, regardless of your hysterics. As soon as Hastert et al. learned on the depth of Foley's depravity (which, apparently was not illegal, mind you!) they asked him to resign.

So what's the beef with Hastert et al? They got rid of the problem when it came to light.

Now, if only Pelosi, Reid, and the other Democratic leadership would have such courage and conviction...

Posted by: Edmonds Dan on October 4, 2006 04:28 PM
85. Edmonds Dan - Well put. iban is gonna stick to his story, no matter how idiotic and foolish it makes him look. He hasn't noticed that all but the really stupid lefties have abandoned the "sexual predator" angle knowing that it, like most of the Dhimmicrat smear schemes, is DOA. I guess that tells you something ;'}

I would hasten to add that we all know that there are some practitioners in Congress from both parties that are pieces of shiite. As has been well documented here and elsewhere, Republicans reject scumbags when we encounter them, and Dhimmicrats circle the wagons around them. The difference is rooted in the ideologies that form the foundation of each party.

The Dhimmicrat party is based on a rotten foundation that even in the best of times is contradictory and counter-productive. The moral equivocation that they accepted as a root set them on the path to their own demise. They have come to embrace every form of depravity and perversion (I guess somebody has to do it, right?). Being natural hypocrites, they seize on something like this Foley thing and project their rage and hatred of the very things they hold so dear against their enemies.

Hack party goons like iban are laughable because they are too simple-minded to even spout the party lines accurately, but they still hold value to the party that holds hive-like obedience so high. They are useful tools, to be used and then cast aside.

So please iban, smear some more of your own feces on your cage and scream out your outrage. Show us just how passionate your hatred is.

It's just too funny.

Posted by: alphabet soup on October 4, 2006 05:17 PM
86. Edmonds Dan @ 84 says:

"So what's the beef with Hastert et al? They got rid of the problem when it came to light."

The beef is that they didn't. They knew about it long before it "came to light," They are lying to cover it up, and you are lying to defend them.

Kirk Fordham, whose statement appears below, will name the names:
"I've learned within the last few hours that unnamed sources have purported that I intervened on behalf of Congressman Foley to prevent a page board investigation. This is categorically false. At no point--ever--did I ask anyone to block any inquiries into Foley's actions or behavior.

These sources know this allegation is false.

Having stepped down as Mr. Reynolds chief of staff, I have no reason to state anything other than the facts. I have no Congressman and no office to protect.

I intend to fully cooperate with any and every investigation of Mr. Foley's conduct. At the same time, I will fully disclose to the FBI and the House Ethics Committee any and all meetings and phone calls I had with senior staffers in the House Leadership about any of Foley's inappropriate activities.

The fact is, even prior to the existence of the Foley email exchanges I had more than one conversation with senior staff at the highest levels of the House of Representatives asking them to intervene when I was informed of Mr. Foley's inappropriate behavior.

One of these staffers is still employed by a Senior House Republican Leader.

Rather than trying to shift the blame on me, those who are employed by these House Leaders should acknowledge what they know about their action or inaction in response to the information they knew about Mr. Foley prior to 2005."
So keep treading water, Dan. Better go out and canvass for your buddy Reichert. He'll need it.

Posted by: ivan on October 4, 2006 05:19 PM
87. iban - you won't "see me in hell", but you're free to drink the effluence that I send down the pipe to ya...

Posted by: alphabet soup on October 4, 2006 05:33 PM
88. Ivan

I have to go inside now, my mommy has dinner ready. It was fun playing though. Maybe another day when I give a sh$t about your excuses for your democrat party.

Foley resigned....He had the balls, whereas the dem's just get re-elected. That speaks volumes for the democrat party and it's staunch supporters.


Posted by: chris on October 4, 2006 06:47 PM
89. Ivan,

You mean this Kirk Fordham? Perfect - thanks for your post! He COMPLETELY dismisses this charge, and you posted that he denies EVER trying to stop investigations...

And we KNOW - from Hastert's own statements - that he talked about Foley's behavior with Foley, and that apparently stopped the actions.

But the bottom line that you're working yourself into a lather about...

- We have a Congressman hitting on legal aged pages, and has now resigned. No sexual contact. He was repremanded by the leadership, and when it got explicit the leadership asked him to resign.

- We have an ex President IMPEACHED for perjury about his sexual relations with a subordinate, yet is given a free pass by you.

- We have a CONVICTED EX DEMOCRATIC CONGRESSMAN CHILD MOLESTER given a pardon by that same President, and you give him a free pass.

- We have a Congressman censured for hiring his gay lover (unqualified, I might add), fixing his tickets, and having a brothel run from his apartment, and you give him a free pass.

Yeah Ivan, you have some sense of ethics and morality!

Corruption to the core - the Democratic Party.

Posted by: Edmonds Dan on October 4, 2006 10:16 PM
90. Oh, Ivan?

Here's the nail in your "Foley" coffin...

APPARENTLY, after ABC inadvertently leaked the identity of the page, it turns out he was 18 at the time of the IMs!

So this IS between two consenting adults! Are we going to condemn the entire leadership for not cracking down on Foley because he was hitting on men of legal age?

What does that say about Reynolds? Or Clinton?

You fell for the crap spewed by the Democrats completely Ivan, and see where it left you? Trying to take down an entire party because two ADULTS had an illicit conversation.

And I thought the Democrats were the party of tolerance, "it's just sex", and "up with homosexuality!"...

Posted by: Edmonds Dan on October 5, 2006 06:26 AM
91. Edmonds Dan @ 90:
"Trying to take down an entire party because two ADULTS had an illicit conversation."

No, there's also the illegal war, and the rape of the environment, and the packing of our courts with fetus fascists and rapture monkeys, and the attemped ripoffs of Social Security, our private pensions, the right to organize, and . . . you get the idea.

This is only the latest of outrages perpetrated on this country by the people for whom you are their adulating fanboy. There is more, much more to come with this Foley thing. What a pleasure it will be watching you guys squirm.

Spin like a top. Spin away. Enjoy yourself.

Posted by: ivan on October 5, 2006 06:43 AM
92. So Ivan, I take it you now agree there's nothing to this Foley "scandal", and admit you're wrong? I see you trying to change the issue here...

You know, I wish both parties would be as tough on all sexual misconduct issues as Hastert has been with Foley. Reynolds, Studds, Crane, Frank, Clinton, Kennedy, and others would have been gone immediately.

Oh, that's right. Hastert did his job - he got rid of the unethical Congressman. If only the Democrats actually cared about kids or women! If only the Democrats cared enough about sexual misconduct, and the abuse of power!

Ivan just tries to change the subject when he's beaten and bloody... Don't admit you're wrong, never! That would break your streak of hypocrisy and partisanship!

Posted by: Edmonds Dan on October 5, 2006 07:08 AM
93. I'm beaten and bloody? Hahaha! Only in your dreams. Here's what you don't get. You can bring up this crap about "age of consent" all you want, but obviously you are not a parent, or at least not a very good one.

You see, your child is always your child, even when that child is 60 and you are 85. Tell me how you might feel if you were the REPUBLICAN parent of these REPUBLICAN pages, and you knew that Hastert, Boehner, Shimkus, and Reynolds KNEW FOR YEARS Foley was hanging around the pages and did nothing about it.

If you had any feelings at all for your children, no matter what their age, (as most parents do, for your information), you might justly feel betrayed that the leadership of your party had failed to protect them, and had tried only to protect themselves.

And this from a party that wraps itself in "family values?" But what do you care? You are a Sound Politics cult member, and reality means nothing to you.

Hastert was tough on Foley? Only in your dreams, Danny Boy. We'll all find out soon what a lie that was. Better run along now. The pipes, the pipes are calling.

Posted by: ivan on October 5, 2006 08:00 AM
94. Ah, there's a useful tool for ya! Clench those bloated, sweaty paws around that straw iban and hold on tight!

Posted by: alphabet soup on October 5, 2006 10:56 AM
95. Oh Ivan? Check out Drudge? Guess what...


Well well well... Those IMs were a prank by a legal aged adult. So what now? We went from




And all were of LEGAL AGE.

So, about that "parent" thing, I guess you'd have a problem if your son or daughter announced they were gay? Or they wanted to date someone much older or much younger than them?

Is that it, Ivan? You're blinded by your partisanship, and deep down you're really a homophobe and agist? Have we uncovered the real Ivan?

Because it seems to me that we have a case of two consenting adults communicating with each other (AND ONLY COMMUNICATION - NO PHYSICAL CONTACT!) and because of the power relationship between them, the senior person was asked to step down.

Of course, that's just about sex, right? What they do in their private life doesn't matter, does it? I mean, if it's perfectly OK for politicians to have sexual relations with their interns while both are on the job, what harm could there come from off-hours contact well AFTER the page has left the page program?

Well, Ivan? Gonna be consistent? Gonna condemn both?

If you really cared about children and family values, you'd condemn both situations. After all, Monica was someone's daughter...

Somehow, I just don't think you can bring yourself to admit that the pinnacle of Democratic power - President Clinton - is no better (and in fact a LOT worse, as he's a convicted perjurer) than the object of your loathing, Mark Foley.

Posted by: Edmonds Dan on October 5, 2006 12:56 PM
96. Darcy a gunslinger?
would i trust her working a pheasant field next to me with some good pointer dogs? that's MY test.

Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on October 5, 2006 08:18 PM
Post a comment

Email Address:



Remember info?