10/01/2006 03:33:48 AM EST

The Republican Protection Racket

posted by Cenk

This is about a Republican Party so corrupt there's nothing they wouldn't cover up to protect their own. If that means your money is misspent or stolen, fine. If that means some Congressmen commit illegal acts to get rich off your back, fine. Apparently, it also means if your kids are exposed to a sexual predator while they are supposed to be learning about our government, even that's fine.

Email Print
Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit Facebook
Is there anything these Republicans won't cover up? Duke Cunningham took millions of dollars in bribes. The people who were buying him off bought him a yacht called the Duke-Stir. He had a bribe menu on Congressional letter head. How many ethics investigations? Zero. Zilch. Nada.

Bob Ney took gifts and favors from Jack Abramoff. He has confessed and is about to go to prison. How many ethics investigations? Zero. None. Not one.

Then there is Hastert's shady land deal. Bill Frist's insider trading. Tom DeLay's money laundering. The list goes on and on. Every one of them had their ass covered by the rest of their Republican colleagues, crooks, whatever you want to call them.

When Joel Hefley, a conservative Republican from Colorado, had the temerity to actually do an ethics investigation of Tom DeLay - he was removed. Can't have it. You can't have any ethics investigations in a place with no ethics. The house will fall in.

Well, now it has. Because they've gone too far. This time they covered for a sexual predator. Mark Foley, Republican of Florida, was caught sending very explicit sexual messages to 16 and 17 year old boys who worked as pages for Congress.

Actually, he was caught by a fellow Republican, Rodney Alexander, because one of the pages worked for Rep. Alexander and turned Foley in. So, what did the Republicans do about it? Absolutely nothing. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

They covered it up. Because it's what they do.

The Republican Protection Racket stepped in and made the story go away. There was no public apology to the boys that were sexually harassed. No criminal investigation. No ethics investigation. Not a word.

The Republican leadership knew for most of the year. In all that time, while other kids could have been exposed, while they knew of several instances of sexual advances toward underage boys - they did nothing!

Now, they feign outrage. Why weren't they outraged when they first found out about it? They're not outraged because young boys were jeopardized. They're outraged now because they're jeopardized.

But it gets worse. They left Foley in charge of the Missing and Exploited Children's Caucus. Come on!

If you put it in a movie about a corrupt Congress, I wouldn't believe it. It's too over the top. You'd walk out of the theater saying, "That's too much. No one would do that." Apparently they would and they did.

Remember this is the same Republicans who spent 140 hours investigating Bill Clinton's Christmas card list. I'm not kidding. They even started an investigation into his cat. If you put it in a movie, no one would believe it.

Not one investigation into what's gone wrong with the war in Iraq, the $9 billion dollars missing in Iraq, why a CIA agent's name was leaked, why Osama bin Laden hasn't been caught or any of the corruption scandals. But they spent 140 hours on the Clinton Christmas list (it turns out they were just Christmas cards, in case you were wondering). They're not even trying to appear fair. They think there's nothing you won't let them do. They're in charge and they can get away with anything.

Now in this case, I think sex scandals are a dime a dozen. Mark Foley resigned. I'm not that interested in that story. He could have been a Democrat, a Republican or a Federalist. Every party has people that do terrible things. This isn't about that.

This is about a Republican Party so corrupt there's nothing they wouldn't cover up to protect their own. If that means your money is misspent or stolen, fine. If that means some Congressmen commit illegal acts to get rich off your back, fine. Apparently, it also means if your kids are exposed to a sexual predator while they are supposed to be learning about our government, even that's fine.

But it's not fine. Not by a long shot. Read what the Congressman wrote to an underage boy that was working in the House of Representatives (the Congressman is Maf54):

Maf54 (8:03:47 PM): what you wearing
Xxxxxxxxx (8:04:04 PM): normal clothes
Xxxxxxxxx (8:04:09 PM): tshirt and shorts
Maf54 (8:04:17 PM): um so a big buldge
Xxxxxxxxx (8:04:35 PM): ya
Maf54 (8:04:45 PM): um
Maf54 (8:04:58 PM): love to slip them off of you
Xxxxxxxxx (8:05:08 PM): haha
Maf54 (8:05:53 PM): and gram the one eyed snake
Maf54 (8:06:13 PM): grab
Xxxxxxxxx (8:06:53 PM): not tonight...dont get to excited
Maf54 (8:07:12 PM): well your hard
Xxxxxxxxx (8:07:45 PM): that is true
Maf54 (8:08:03 PM): and a little horny
Xxxxxxxxx (8:08:11 PM): and also tru
Maf54 (8:08:31 PM): get a ruler and measure it for me
Xxxxxxxxx (8:08:38 PM): ive already told you that
Maf54 (8:08:47 PM): tell me again
Xxxxxxxxx (8:08:49 PM): 7 and 1/2
Maf54 (8:09:04 PM): ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Maf54 (8:09:08 PM): beautiful
Xxxxxxxxx (8:09:38 PM): lol
Maf54 (8:09:44 PM): thats a great size
Xxxxxxxxx (8:10:00 PM): thank you
Maf54 (8:10:22 PM): still stiff
Xxxxxxxxx (8:10:28 PM): ya
Maf54 (8:10:40 PM): take it out
Xxxxxxxxx (8:10:54 PM): brb...my mom is yelling
Maf54 (8:11:06 PM): ok
Xxxxxxxxx (8:14:02 PM): back
Maf54 (8:14:37 PM): cool hope se didnt see any thing

He was supposed to be protecting him. He was Chairman of the Missing and Exploited Children's Caucus!

After all this, they still covered for him. They didn't even take him off the Exploited Teen Caucus. They left him in charge. Because they don't care. They don't care about anybody but themselves. They are driven mad with power. Their only goal is to stay in power. Now, the question is, are you going to let them get away with it? Are you going to let them keep that power, knowing what they've done with it?

< Down with the sickness? | October Suprise >
 Display:
The Republican Protection Racket | 40 comments (40 topical, 0 hidden)
Cenk (none / 0)
Why is anyone surprised.

Throughout history the people who claim to be the most moral, the most religious, the most ethical are ALWAYS the biggest crooks, liars and abusers of the public trust.

You just highlighted a preacher named Boon who hates "fags". Question why would he and other evangelicals vote for the republican party? A Party that allows gays to join? A party that covers up attacks on children? A party that allows billions of TAXPAYERS dollars to be stolen?

How is this any different than Evangelical preachers who "invest" in gold mines? or Catholic priests who abused children? Even the mighty Roman Catholic Church tried to cover things up, hurts the image you know.

by LORD FOUL on 10/01/2006 11:19:13 AM EST

Aw, give 'em a break! (none / 0)
"But it gets worse. They left Foley in charge of the Missing and Exploited Children's Caucus. Come on! "

C'mon, Cenk, they would have gotten around to addressing it sooner or later...my guess would be right after the next time they complain about who is on the Human Rights council at the U.N. or sticking up for the Boy Scouts "right" to exclude Gays to protect the lil'uns from being "recruited."

Sometimes you carry on so! I mean, it's not like Foley wanted to marry any of those underage boys he was chatting up. Besides, if the Repub bosses had said anything, it might have drawn attention away from the importance of getting his "Keep the kids safe from Internet predators" legislation passed...

by MedfordTim on 10/01/2006 11:54:54 AM EST

Boo hoo, boo hoo. (none / 0)
Poor me. I feel so bad. The booze made me do it. I am not a predatory hypocritical son of a bitch; I have a drinking problem. Pity me.

Signed, Mark Foley

P.S. Don't forget to write

Visit the Schapira blog, What we know so far ...

... and tell 'em Big Mitch sent ya!

by BigMitch on 10/02/2006 06:28:33 AM EST

[ Parent ]
The Party Of Hypocrites (none / 0)
Simply yet another example of do as I say, not as I do philosophy running rampant in the Republican party. It goes to show how basing a party on the grounds that it is the only party of morals can backfire.

by MountainMan on 10/01/2006 11:55:20 AM EST

Pelosi (none / 0)
Pelosi knew about it all this last year but probably saved it for a Oct surprise. After not really caring when the dems do it why should she care whena  republican does it? except before the midterms

by acroso on 10/01/2006 12:12:00 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Only reason I care (none / 0)
They (Republicans) are always spewing how they are the ones with all the morals!

by MountainMan on 10/01/2006 12:19:16 PM EST

[ Parent ]
dems (none / 0)
1)     Well he's not in office anymore. In the case of the democrats, that was not the course.

2) In the case of the democrats, the person actually had sex vs. just using instant messenger.

3) In the case of the democrats, he turned his back on the censure and Pelosi etc seemed to think that was ok.

by acroso on 10/01/2006 12:22:53 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Wasn't defending dems either (none / 0)
Simply saying that the right is always professing they are the ones with morals and ALL leftys are immoral. I have heard pundits insinuate this myself. My last post on this as we could go back and forth forever.

by MountainMan on 10/01/2006 12:31:17 PM EST

[ Parent ]
more to come (none / 0)
if you think everything about this predator has been released, you got another thing coming...there is more to come, and it will show that with others, it was more than just online, which, apparently to you, causes no harm...nice to see you defending a pervert.

by boonegoddess on 10/01/2006 12:46:40 PM EST

[ Parent ]
both sides (none / 0)
I'm not defending him, I'm just saying both sides are guilty

by acroso on 10/01/2006 01:20:44 PM EST

[ Parent ]
dems (none / 0)
Also do you mean more to come- like as in more to come like what the democrat did? aka actual sex vs. only messages?

by acroso on 10/01/2006 01:22:01 PM EST

[ Parent ]
pervert apologists and defenders... (none / 0)
beware...can you read this?

Foley IM's appear to be 3rd degree felony

Brian Beutler
Published: Monday October 2, 2006



A passing statement in an instant message conversation with a teenage page might provide investigators with a damning piece of evidence suggesting criminal behavior in the case of former congressman Mark Foley, RAW STORY has learned.
That instant message conversation from 2003 contains the following exchange:

Teen: whered ya go this afternoon (sic)
Maf54: I am in pensecola-had to catch a plane

Over the course of several pages of dialogue, that conversation became extraordinarily graphic, and included several direct references to masturbation techniques and frequency, discussion of the child's penis size, and even the congressman's explicit interest in sexual contact with the boy.

However, by acknowledging his Pensacola, FL location, Foley may have offered evidence of his violation of Florida state law, which says:

"Any person who knowingly utilizes a computer on-line service, Internet service, or local bulletin board service to seduce, solicit, lure, or entice, or attempt to seduce, solicit, lure, or entice, a child or another person believed by the person to be a child--commits a felony of the third degree."

In the days since the extent of Foley's transgressions were made public, questions have arisen about how much information House Republican leaders had about the Florida congressman's sexual proclivities.

Today, House Speaker Dennis Hastert sought to clear up that confusion by releasing a statement which read in part, "No one in the Republican Leadership, nor Congressman Shimkus, saw those [instant] messages until last Friday when ABC News released them to the public."

However, critics on both the right and the left have pointed out that ABC News was able to obtain the instant message conversation only days after learning about the less-explicit emails. House leadership has known about those same emails since 2005.

Among the harshest critics is David Bossie, head of the conservative group Citizens United. He told the right wing publication Human Events, "Speaker Hastert had knowledge of Congressman Foley's inappropriate behavior and chose to protect a potential pedophile and powerful colleague over a congressional page-Mr. Hastert should resign immediately."

Other instant message conversations between Foley and underage boys do not contain clear indications of the congressman's location, an ambiguity that may confuse which laws apply to him. RAW STORY will continue to search for evidence of his whereabouts at the time of these online sessions.

so, there sparky, what is your next line of defense for the republican pervert?  do you have kids?

by boonegoddess on 10/02/2006 04:48:48 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Consensual vs Mark Foley (none / 0)
What you seem to forget Monica was 21 years old and Clinton didn't force her into doing anything!

This was between two consenting adults! Writng innapropriate emails to a 16 yr old child and talking about masterbaution techniques is not a conversation that should take place between a 52 yr old man and a 16 yr old child!

People get so outraged when  a 30 yr male teacher writes innapropriate emails to a 16 yr old female student. But there is no where near the outrage if a 35 yr old female teacher has an inappropriate relationship with a 14 yr old male student.

Mary Kay Latourneau was impregnated twice by her underage student.

So why should Mark Foley or any legislator be shielded from prosecution for abusing children?

But we go after sex offenders and have zero tolerance for thier behavior?

I wish I was a Florida prosecutor I would impanel a grand jury and indict him for crimes against children!

Mark Foley behavior is unexcusable and shouldnot be tolerated whether he is a legislator or a private citizen!

by demzrule on 10/01/2006 01:46:05 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Clinton (none / 0)
I wasn't talking about Clinton, I was referring to the two democrats who did the same thing as Foley only Pelosi stayed quiet on them. And they didn't jsut instant message about sex, they actually had sex. When they were censured they turned their back on the house in the name of "we have the right to have sex with minors" and KEPT their seats.

by acroso on 10/01/2006 01:55:55 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Clinton (none / 0)
When did this happen?

If it did then they should be prosecuted.

It seems to me that there is more to that story than you are letting on.

It still doesn't change what the Republicans did now, aren't you Pubs supposed to be the "moral values" party?

See the difference

by LORD FOUL on 10/01/2006 02:06:03 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Lordy lordy.... (none / 0)
"When did this happen?" "It seems to me that there is more to that story than you are letting on."

Actually, there is LESS, not more, since one of the people he's slinging the mud at - Barney Frank - was not involved with minors or pages. His was a case of having a personal assistant who was running a male prostitution ring from his basement, whom he fired as soon as he found out about it. in 1990, Congress spanked him with a reprimand and his constituents re-elected him a few months later and ever since. Oh, yeah...what was his charge? Why was he reprimanded? For using his Congressman status to fix 33 of Gobie's parking tickets - nothing to do with sex at all.


The other is Gerry Studds, who DID have an affair with a 17 year old page his first year in office...1973. When it came out years later in 1983, he was censured. And was re-elected by his voter's, what was it again....6? 7? more terms before he retired?

Well, okay, there is a little more to the story...at the same time Studds was being censured, so was Republican Dan Crane for having an affair with a 17 year old female page. Studds stood his ground, Crane wept like a baby...and was NOT re-elected by his constituents. 

"Both representatives immediately pleaded guilty to the charges and the committee decided to simply reprimand the two.
"However, U.S. Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) demanded their expulsion. On July 20, the House voted for censure, the first time that censure had been imposed for sexual misconduct. Crane, who tearfully apologized for his transgression, lost his bid for reelection in 1984. Studds, however, refused to apologize (even calling a press conference with the former page, in which both stated that they were consenting adults at the time of the relationship and that it was therefore not the business of others to censure them for their private relationship), and he continued to be reelected until his retirement in 1996."


Acrosa lies a lot, you have to keep on your toes around him. He likes to throw his crap every which way and see if any of it sticks. What none of us is sure of is if he is psychotic enough to believe his own drivel.

by MedfordTim on 10/01/2006 02:50:59 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Thanks again (none / 0)
Cleared up Studds for me too, Kenny the crybaby was ranting about him in the Down with sickeness entry.

Foley is a predator

But Studds is one too, cries the kentx

He needs to find a Barbie (appropriate age of course)

by LORD FOUL on 10/01/2006 02:59:25 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I just need to talk about this for a minute (none / 0)

"But there is no where near the outrage if a 35 yr old female teacher has an inappropriate relationship with a 14 yr old male student."

You're damn right.  I think the double standard here is just based in solid observations about the (very non-PC) different ways adolescent boys and girls experience sex and develop sexually.  How many other relationships like this go completely unnoticed because the kid is smart enough to keep his trap shut while he's in carnal heaven?

by jarett on 10/02/2006 10:54:35 PM EST

[ Parent ]
It's sing along time! (none / 0)
"Pelosi knew about it all this last year but probably saved it for a Oct surprise."

Okay, everyone, join in!

You're a lying sack of crap.
You're a lying sack of crap.
You're a lying, scheming, nasty, stinking 
sack of liquid crap.

Plink! Plink!

"Well he's not in office anymore. In the case of the democrats, that was not the course." (sic)

That's because the coward CUT AND RAN where the Democrats took their lumps and their constituents kept re-electing them. Democrats are tough. Republicans are lying sacks of crap cowards who cut and run when caught. Pussies. Just look at Tom DeLay - why fight when he can quit before any reprecussions can splatter all over him? Wonder if it's because they know their voters would kick them out on their asses anyhow?

"2) In the case of the democrats, the person actually had sex vs. just using instant messenger."

Gosh, maybe that's because there was very little Instant Messaging back in 1973 when the incident you refer to occurred? (I love it when you lying sacks of crap have to go back 30+ years like that....really lends credibility to your arguments...)

"As the House read their censure of him, Studds turned his back and ignored them. Later, at a press conference with the former page standing beside him, the two stated that what had happened between them was nobody's business but their own."

As in, NOT sending off letters of resignation then going to hide under a desk somewhere.
 
3) In the case of the democrats, he turned his back on the censure and Pelosi etc seemed to think that was ok.

Damn that Nancy! How could she not take the floor and denounce the Congressman turning his back like that...FOUR FREAKING YEARS before she was elected to Congress? What a bitch, huh?


Go on talking, stud. Our esteem grows with every post.

By the way....did I mention that Foley CUT AND RAN?

by MedfordTim on 10/01/2006 02:13:31 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Pelosi (none / 0)
Thanks for clearing that up for me, I really didn't know what he was talking about.

What a crock of shit? 30 years ago?

That is almost as bad as Kenny boy going back to the Truman years, back when Republicans called Democrats "Communists"

by LORD FOUL on 10/01/2006 02:40:00 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Pelosi (none / 0)
How did she know when the  the Republican leadership covered it up?

Love how the republican party covers for homosexual-child predators, where is preacher Boon when you need him?

Since gays are attacking marriage, our way of life and are an abomination (as it says in the bible) why are these creatures even permitted to be in the party of Boon, Robertson and Farwell? I guess Evangelicals secretly like gays too? Andrew Sullivan where are you? You and the log cabin republicans got a gig on the 700 club, right after Foley confessess and professes never to sin again.

by LORD FOUL on 10/01/2006 01:53:51 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Absurd at the least. (none / 0)
Thats the most lame, unfounded claim I have yet to see...

by DeCee on 10/02/2006 08:59:48 AM EST

[ Parent ]
its all about (none / 0)
character...remember that republican spew?  to watch these guys in action is disgusting--remember when kerry said off mike at a campaign stop "these guys are so corrupt" referring to his erstwhile republican opponents???  just another example of how truly dirty they are...now we have to protect our kids from the republicans---and not just because they will try to march them off to war, but because they literally want to try to screw them.

by boonegoddess on 10/01/2006 12:43:46 PM EST

Character (none / 0)
Character is a 2 letter word to Republicans ( B.S.)

by LORD FOUL on 10/01/2006 03:13:44 PM EST

[ Parent ]
ups (none / 1)
You guys do realize they are investigating who possessed the data and IM's from Foley.

We could very well find out they had had these for months and had been saving them for Oct surprise.

Typical dems.

At least out guys get kicked out when they do something like this.

It's funny the person who made the laws, is going to be the first Ginny pig for testing the laws. He must not have been this smart if he makes laws to get himself with..
From what I read, if he had been having sex with these teens there would have been nothing illegal to his actions. But since he was soliciting via the internet, he has committed a crime- that he wrote and no one has tested yet…presumably ably it will be tested on him- the author.

by acroso on 10/01/2006 09:43:21 PM EST

republicans adapt (none / 0)
After watching Kennedy go into rehab to avoid extra heat, Foley enters rehab.

by acroso on 10/01/2006 11:28:58 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Spawn (none / 0)
Has anyone seen the animated Spawn movie on HBO that aired years ago?

All of the politicians were having sex with boys and conspiring behind closed doors to get tons of money.

This whole thing kind of reminds me of that

by acroso on 10/01/2006 11:34:10 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Uh...no (none / 0)
Spawn....how republican.

by DeCee on 10/02/2006 09:01:09 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Kennedy (none / 0)
Nice try isn't Kennedy an alcoholic?

Since when are homosexual child predators, alcoholics?

by LORD FOUL on 10/02/2006 08:23:52 AM EST

[ Parent ]
raunchey im's and emails brings down the GOP? (none / 0)
Well they both are, but old man Kennedy went home after killing his passenger. ANYONE ELSE- WOULD HAVE GOTTEN A FELONY FLEEING THE SCENE OF A CRIME NO MATTER WHAT! GUARANTEED.

Foley sent some raunchy instant messages or emails. I don't know, do you think a child can be scarred for life from ims and emails? Frankly the family didn’t want this to be national news and told house leaders this when they saw the friendly email (they did not see the more recent raunchy ims.) If I was 17, and had worked for a congressman who was sending me stuff like this, the last thing I would want is to make a national story out of it.

by acroso on 10/02/2006 01:22:32 PM EST

[ Parent ]
You so silly (none / 0)
Tim mops the floor with you using FACTS, you know those things that get in the way of your bull shit, and you keep going! It really is helarious. Now you are ranting about something Kennedy did a million years ago that has ZERO to do with anything. Why are you taking on the role of the resident handi capbable? Do you like being humiliated or something? You are just rediculous.

by LoneStarLiberal on 10/02/2006 01:41:16 PM EST

[ Parent ]
D.C. (none / 0)
I was talking about bother Kennedy's. One of them was drunk driving a few months ago and crashed into a baricade of some sort.

by acroso on 10/02/2006 04:57:16 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Answer (none / 0)
It must have started happening about the same time we got a dumbass alchoholic for president! Just another case of Repubs not looking at themselves when they preach morals.

by MountainMan on 10/02/2006 05:37:11 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Does Hastert still have his teachers license? (none / 0)
If he does there's a law that requires him to report this.

by HoneyBearKelly on 10/02/2006 06:15:01 AM EST

Law (none / 0)
Bush will just make another law exempting all republicans from any criminal prosecution

by LORD FOUL on 10/02/2006 09:19:06 AM EST

[ Parent ]
ims (none / 0)
Hastert said he had the same info many major news outlets have had for the past year.

The real question is who had these ims and why were they sitting on them for so long? If they had these ims why didn't they come forward sooner?

by acroso on 10/02/2006 06:13:30 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Drudge (none / 0)
WASHINGTON TIMES ON TUESDAY WILL CALL FOR SPEAKER HASTERT'S RESIGNATION, NEWSROOM SOURCES TELL DRUDGE... DEVELOPING...


Well holy shit

by acroso on 10/02/2006 08:10:10 PM EST

WashingtonTimes (none / 0)
I don't know if this is for real. I sure hope not since from what I've seen Hastert has handled this well.

If so it's pretty fucking bad.

by acroso on 10/02/2006 08:11:57 PM EST

[ Parent ]
He's tried to spin it (none / 0)

and failed.  Are you really surprised?

Hastert is hardly a beacon of liberty.  So what if he goes?
 

by jarett on 10/02/2006 10:37:04 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I think this is just garble drudge fished up (none / 0)
I think this is just garble drudge fished up

by acroso on 10/02/2006 10:50:21 PM EST

[ Parent ]
The Republican Protection Racket | 40 comments (40 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: