Maguire is pretty funny, unintentionally of course. Like this:
Clarice Feldman wrote a brilliant piece on this. It's got the smell of "dirty tricks" all over it! In other words, the donks are mounting an effort (plame like?) to shill Foley by trying to get "Hastert and Reynolds."
. . . Some day, ahead. Way in the future. Someone writing about this stuff will blame the money of George Soros for really ruining the democrapic party. But I'm not a prophet. I can't foretell events. Only that I don't see a winning streak, here, for the MSM. Or their tawdry tricks.
Posted by: Carol Herman | October 01, 2006 at 12:08 PM
Thanks.
More from a poster at F.R.
"there was a news guy from Miama(Steve Rothaus, www.rothaus.net: 305-376-3770 or srothaus@MiamiHerald.com) who had posted in the comments section on September 24(the sunday before the story 'broke') seeking information. He writes on Gay Issues for the Miami Herald and has his own blog on Blogspot for South Florida Gays.
Posted by: clarice feldman | October 01, 2006 at 12:11 PM
TM, two points:
1. Mahoney could not have made those claims based on the e-mails to the LA boy alone. Everyone in D.C. knew the "open" secret that Foley was gay, and Mahoney would have looked like a gay baiter of the worst sort (not a flattering portrait for a "gay friendly" democrat) if that's all he had. He had to know that there was something coming down the pike of a damning, and irrefutable nature that outed Foley for a boy cruising perv.
2. This could not have gone to the press without the parents approval, which makes them look rather suspicious. It completely contradicts what they told Alexander--that they just wanted it to stop, and didn't want the text of the messages shared etc. Excuse me for being the cynic, but I smell money, or maybe some real deep and dirty bayou politics at work.
It looks like Hasert was the target, and yes--unless something very damning comes out that we don't know about--his office was set up. He did exactly the right thing based on the information he had. His staff acted immediately, appropriately, and according to the parent's wishes. It is not Hasert's fault that Foley lied, or that other ex-pages did not come forward. When they did, he got rid of Foley immediately.
Posted by: verner | October 01, 2006 at 12:14 PM
As to 2. It is possible that the kid gave the correspondence to someone who posted it elsewhere.
Heck, it could even have come from someone on the Hill.
But it is unfair that Hastert should be tagged for not following up when the parents blocked further investigation only to find that correspondence splashed around the world months later.
Posted by: clarice feldman | October 01, 2006 at 12:26 PM
Big Time H/T Clarice.
Posted by: Gerry Studds (D-MA) | October 01, 2006 at 12:28 PM
Clarice:Heck, it could even have come from someone on the Hill.
The only problem there, however, is that it doesn't seem like anyone outside of Alexander's office ever had access to the e-mails. They didn't share him with Hasert, because the parents didn't want them to.
And this seems just a little too sophisticated an operation without the parent's backing. Some anonymous source passes the actual e-mails on to the press, via a 16 year old, and they look into the story? Why? If you read them, on their face, there is simply no there there. You would have to have the parents backing up the allegations to give them any credibility at all.
Posted by: verner | October 01, 2006 at 12:43 PM
. . . Maybe a lefty lurker out there would like to answer a question:
If the Kos Kommunity didn't believe the Foley as Internet Stalker story, how is it you expect the GOP leadership, their most rabid opponents, to believe in it enough to kick him out of Congress?
Posted by: Rick Moran | October 01, 2006 at 01:07 PM
I meant to put that comment in a time context.
The GOP leadership found out about the emails to the former page last year.
If the Kos Kids were skeptical now, why should the leadership have taken drastic action then?
Posted by: Rick Moran | October 01, 2006 at 01:12 PM
Those Krazy Kos Kids believe evidence is required before "smearing." The Right might want to consider that approach sometime.
