Clarice on Foley

Sunday, October 01, 2006
Clarice Feldman makes sense of the Foley fiasco, from the American Thinker:

ABC has not disclosed the names of the recipients of the instant messages which were sexually explicit, years old, and not seen by anyone else. We do not know how anyone but the recipients could have retrieved them. We do not even know if they are authentic. None of the recipients has come forward and identified himself. What we do know is that reputable media and the Republican leadership acted appropriately on the initial innocuous correspondence and could not proceed further in view of the parents’ demand that their son’s privacy be respected only to find months later just before the election that same correpondence showing up on an unlikely blog site and then almost simultaneously on ABC and on C.R.E.W.’s site. As for the demand that a special prosecutor be appointed, maybe Patrick Fitzgerald can be appointed. Then he can fail to ask ABC or C.R.E.W. how they got the correspondence, ignore their political motivations, conflate their partisanship with “whistleblowing”, not look for the sources of the later sexually explicit emails, and nab Hastert for forgetting when he went to the bathroom on the day he heard about the emails.

I think Foley is a creepy little man but I also think that this whole thing is about as accidental as the bombing of Pearl Harbor.

And while this might get me in trouble, I also have to say that 16 is not a little child. Let's not make it worse than it is by treating Foley like a thrice convicted child molestor. Unethical as he is, none of this may actually be criminal. He should still be ashamed of himself, however, and so should some other people who can't wait for the facts before they judge.


Rick Ballard said...


Who do you think will be taken out in reprisal? My bets would be Melancon down in LA-03, Marshall in GA-08, Barrow in GA-12 or Edwards in TX-17. I lean towards Edwards but Melancon is probably a better bet, being from LA.

Fresh Air said...


Are you implying there are mud-filled arrows in the quiver that the GOP will use? They've had them before but been either unwilling or unable to deploy them.

Melancon is polling very strong.

Rick Ballard said...


Where have you seen a legitimate poll on Melancon? There might be a campaign paid poll but that district is so screwed up (because of Katrina) that polling is next to impossible.

terrye said...

Now Rick, that sounds so vengeful and cynical.

Fresh Air said...


No, you're probably right. The one I saw was on Melancon's website. I suppose if a candidate paid for it, he should state that, huh?

Fresh Air said...

Because to do otherwise would be kind of...unethical.

2164th said...

Right on about the 16 year old. There is a gap in our laws regarding seduction and rape. It is almost laughable when they talk about a 24 year old teacher having sex with her 15 year old student. No 16 year old boy is going to be seduced by an older man unless he wants to be.

David Thomson said...

The Republicans are likely to do well on election day. This is scaring the hell out of the left-wing journalist community. They are going to pull every trick in the book.

Fresh Air said...

I'm still trying to understand how this is such a big story. Is this all the Mediacrats have? This is the October Surprise?

Rick Ballard said...


This is just the first light salvo. Based upon lack of spending support by the RNSC and his opponent's dodging of debates I'd say that Santorum is the big target. Santorum is a big family values promoter and the Dems aren't forgetting the 'moral values' response on the exit polls after '04. That's what the Abramoff deal is all about.

I hope that Santorum is as clean as the image that he presents but the lack of spending on his campaign versus the money dumped on the idiot DeWine (which is paying off) is rather strange.

chuck said...

The Republicans are likely to do well on election day.

I have little confidence of this. I am also tending to blame Frist and Hastert who, like the Dems, seem a bit short on vision and haven't kept the troops squeaky clean and well behaved.

loner said...

Santorum is irrelevant. He's going to lose.

I remember B-1 Bob (Dornan was always entertaining in that whacko way certain politicians are) saying once in my hearing (possibly when discussing why the House never did a "real" investigation of his loss to Loretta Sanchez in '96) that Gingrich told him that someone had threatened to "out" the 5 or 6 gay Republican Congressmen if anything was done.

The Republican Party decided to brand itself as the party of morality after the Democrats (then the majority party) decided to come down "pro-choice" in 1976. Foley was done in by technology, the cultural climate and his party affiliation. Nothing particularly new in any of that.

Politics used to be so much more interesting.

I'm still in California...possibly for another week. Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans. John Lennon, of course.

terrye said...


I used to think that only the right was homophobic and anti semitic, but I have to admit that in the last few years I have heard things from people on the left about Jews and gays that have shocked me. Really.

So I am not so sure that we can sterotype either party that easily anymore.

Because of that I have no idea what will happen on election day.

I just do not want two years of investigations and hearings and impeachment and on and on.

loner said...


I wasn't stereotyping. I was trying to explain why Republicans in Foley's position have to go while Democrats in the same position don't.

The odds that you'll get what you don't want for the next two years are increasing—almost daily.

That Strata guy is amusing.


CF said...

I understand that throughout his career, the polls have underestimated Santorum's count by 6 %. He's confident. His staff is confident.

Here's a tip:Rendell likes him and hates Casey and the extra sauce of the Philadelphia vote fraud will not help Casey--it will not occur.

loner said...


Want to bet?