1

Joe, are you trying to tell us we should focus on the family?

(sorry, couldn't resist...)

2

Joe, are you trying to tell us we should focus on the family?

Focus on the family? That's catchy. Someone should use that as a slogan or something. ; )

3

I see that the "never married" group includes those who marry later in life (when isn't specified), and gay folks, who are waiting for the chance. Still, anything to get people away from that Red state / Blue state nonsense.

4

I suspect that this in large part boils down to the fact that Democrats command a higher percentage of the black and homosexual vote.

"Republicans control 49 of the 50 districts with the highest rates of married people.

Democrats represent all 50 districts that have the highest rates of adults who have never married.

Democrats represent 30 districts in which fewer than half of children live with married parents. Republicans represent none.

Republican Congress members represent 39.2 million children, about 7 million more than Democrats. In fact, Republicans represent an average of 7,000 more children per district.

Children in Democratic districts are far more likely to live in poverty and with single parents than kids in GOP districts."

Let's see some more demographics for these districts, showing a breakdown by race and sexual preference.

5

I think Rob Ryan makes a very good, if incomplete point.

To call this a "marriage gap" ignores the simple fact that a certain number of important life decisions usually get made prior to marriage. I don't think anyone would argue that single people wake up some morning finding themselves mysteriously married and attracted to the editorial pages of the Wall St. Journal.

I think Mr Ryan is correct about the utility of thinking about other demographic variables. However usefil demographics may be, they are also, in many cases, simply surrogate data for the real causal factors. Behavioral and attitudinal factors very often drive demographic variables, and I suggest that behavioral/attitudinal "root causes" underlie the true causal factors in this case.

Unfortunately, it is very often the case that demographic surrogates are the only data that are, practically speaking, collectable.

I think it is probably more true to say that there is a behavioral/attitudinal gap that drives amrriage and, secondarily, party affiliation in this country. Well, duh, eh? Those particular behavioral factors drive things like interest in marriage, marriageability, views on children and abortion, views on the desirability of employment and job-seeking behaviors, views on the role of authority to care for health, financial, and other problems, etc.

Finally, and perhaps most interesting and easily ignored, is gerrymandering. We aren't talking about random clusterings here, folks. The observation that people with similar attitudes and behaviors tend to cluster together is so universal a behavior throughout history as to be a cliche' predicts that people will tend move closer to like people and further from unlike people. Hence, those to be found within a given Congressional district - given the redistricting rules that the Democratic party invented and that have been effectively adopted by the Republicans in places where there is a Republican majority - will tend to yield these data, rather than some more random distribution. The original intent of these rules was to guarantee this very outcome for racial variables. The Democratic party can rest easy knowing their approach works, but worry that it works for everybody, not just for them.

6

By themselves, these figures don't mean anything particularly about the parties, the voters, or the issues in the campaign. So large families vote Republican and small ones vote Democratic? That's neither good nor bad in itself. It's significant only as a way for each party to identify what motivates their particular voting bloc.

In respect of that question, there is a correlation/causation problem here. If the idea is to identify what factors drive political allegiance and then focus on those factors (e.g., by pushing "family" issues if you think family structure influences voting patterns), then you need to determine whether the correlation of larger families with Republican voting is not accidental or, more likely, the result of their both being correlated with some other, third factor. And there are reasons to think that is likely.

There are several factors contributing to family structure, including class, employment opportunities in the local community, and cultural factors influencing family structure (including race and sexual preference, but also religion and others as well). These factors are by themselves well-known voter motivating issues, and have a much more obvious political component than merely how many children a family has.

If voting choices are really influenced by race, religion, class, economics, or what have you - and those factors just happen to group voters by family size as well - then focusing on family issues as a way of reaching the voters you want will be ineffective. It could even be counterproductive if you are talking to your voters about irrelevant issues while the opposition is talking to their voters about factors that are really significant: even if your focus on family issues does select for the voters you want to reach, you are failing to excite them, while the opposition is telling theirs what they need to hear to get energized and vote.

The facts you cite above may be important or they may not be, but by themselves they don't tell you what to do to approach the voters, at least until you can show, not only that Republican voters have large families, but that they are Republican voters because they have large families.

7

As we read these, let's remember that it's a correlation, not a causal assertion. For instance, when the black community had a high marriage rate it still voted Dem by and large.

Collin
http://evangelicalperspective.blogspot.com

8

What a crock - as though you can count on married people with children to support the Sexual Predators/Torture Party. And it looks like the House Repugnant leadership is deeply involved in the coverup.

Heh. right....I wouldn't let my kid within 50 feet of a Republican. I think their propsensity to be predators and to be less than safe with their staff (remember Joe Scarborough?) means we be able to find out if any Republicans live in our area by going on line, and checking their criminal records.

9

If you want to understand the political divide in the U.S., take a hard look at this “marriage and fertility gap” and ponder why the GOP is preferred by voters with traditional family structures. It’s about time we set aside the simplistic Red State/Blue State. For when it comes to politics, what really matters is the state of the family.

An interesting analysis but before you jump to conclusions too quickly I would ponder some possible other factors that might be involved:

1. Is there an income/class trend here? I suspect wealthy people or at least successful ones are more likely to be married. Some of this might be causal, being married makes it easier to be successful. Most of it, though, is probably not. Donald Trump isn't successful because he is married, he is married because his success makes him very attractive in the marriage market. Do Democrats appeal to people who are having a more difficult time in life? Who think they may need help from the social safety net such as unemployment, welfare, other types of aid etc? If so these people are also less likely to be married (which man is more likely to have an easy time getting a wife, the one who worries about unemployment being there for him or the one who worries about the top tax bracket being raised on him?)

2. Even if the association is firmly with married versus unmarried regardless to any other variables does it follow that the best conclusion from this is that Republicans are better for the 'state of the family'? Whatever that means.

a. Implicit here is the assumption that the gov't somehow determines the 'state of the family'. My personal experience is that gov't policies have next to nothing to do with the state of the family.

b. Would right wingers accept this logic elsewhere? It has been mentioned that Democrats command a huge portion of the black vote. Should we conclude that Republicans are bad for blacks? Many right wingers have argued that Democrats are bad for blacks and blacks would be smarter to realign themselves with Republicans. However if a party can 'fool' a demographic group into giving them undeserved support who is to say that Republicans haven't 'fooled' the married folk into supporting them...perhaps by making a big deal out of spurious issues like gay marriage that really have next to nothing to do with the condition of 99.99% of married couples....sort of like how some Democrats make a big deal out of Klu Klux Klan type racism even though the KKK is so socially and politically impotent today that they are unlikely to have an impact on the lives of just about any black people in America.

10

the GOP is preferred by voters with traditional family structures. It’s about time we set aside the simplistic Red State/Blue State. For when it comes to politics, what really matters is the state of the family.

Of course without large numbers of single people in our society, it would be much more difficult to live in a "traditional family structure".

This is because there is a great transfer of wealth from single people to those with families.

And the number one factor that affects families more than any other is economic pressure.

(Insert gratuitous shot toward FoF for misplaced priorities here.)

11

What a crock - as though you can count on married people with children to support the Sexual Predators/Torture Party. And it looks like the House Repugnant leadership is deeply involved in the coverup.

You say that like Democrats have never had sexual predators in their ranks whose behavior was covered by fellow congressmen.

12

Also I noticed that all the stats Joe gave concern districts but not the actual voting patterns of people who are married, unmarried, with kids and without kids etc.

For example, in districts with lots of married people how do the unmarried people vote? If they tend to vote Republican then that would lead us to conclude that the relationship is probably not significant. As someone pointed out, married, better off blacks tend to remain loyal to the Democratic party. While New York and California have plenty of unmarried and childless people I doubt that the Democrats could hold those states without the support of the married and with children people.

13

The GOP, in its current incarnation, is probably the least family-friendly administration in history. They are presiding over the dismantling of the middle class. They have curtailed tuition assistance. They have drastically cut back Pell grants. They have pushed tax giveaways to billionaires and tossed the middle class skyrocketing fuel prices - vis-a-vis the promotion of Mid East instability.

The Pentagon, led by Rumsfeld, is crushing thousands upon thousands of families with recalls and duty extensions, mated with VA benefit and Tricare cutbacks. Support the troops? Don't elect more of these clowns. And how 'bout that Bankruptcy Bill? Medicare D? Telecom "reform"? You don't get good law when you invite industry to come on up and write whatever the hell they want. How are jobs in your area? How are your benefits? Has your employer started talking to you about Health Savings Accounts?

Can't think of anything more family friendly than the environment itself. Thanks to Team Bush, your kids have dirtier water and dirtier air, fewer protections on food, a gutted EPA and an ideologically driven FDA.

The only way in which you might say that Joe has any kind of point to this posting is the vague, fuzzy notion that by persecuting gay people and attacking abortion rights, Republicans come off being able to yarble about "values" but, in recent polling, the electorate finally seems to be waking up. They're realizing, coast to coast and across the heartland that they've been sold a bill of goods. While the legislature tosses out occasional panem et circenses like flag burning amendments.

It isn't working anymore. Delay, Abramoff, Ney, Cunningham, and now this evil, reeking abomination of Foley and Hastert. It's like the picture of Dorian Gray - the sick and twisted heart of greed and mendacity that is the modern Republican Party can no longer hide the squirming worms of its genius: The Me Generation of Reagan has finally borne its promised fruit and it's falling, excrudescent, bursting at our feet.

14

Great post, Joe. What I hear all the faithful Dhimmicrat posters here saying is,"Move along folks! There's nothing here to see!" Always a sure sign you're onto something.

15

J. J.

You say that like Democrats have never had sexual predators in their ranks whose behavior was covered by fellow congressmen.

Like whom? We all know that Bill Clinton's and Barney Frank's and Gerry Studd's affairs were consensual, with people over age.

And we also know that none of them were both co-authors and violators of the Children's Internet Protection act.

Cheesehead:
Great post, Joe. What I hear all the faithful Dhimmicrat posters here saying is,"Move along folks! There's nothing here to see!" Always a sure sign you're onto something.

What I hear from you is "Move along folks! Nothing to see here!"

Always a sure sign we're onto something.

I just hope if you're moving you inform the local law enforcement offices. I think parents everywhere need to know if a Republican's moved in near them.

16

"Has your employer started talking to you about Health Savings Accounts?"

Absolutely, and its the best thing that has happened to me financially in years. We will all be better off as people take up this HSA's as part of the solution to our health care problem.

17

We all know that Bill Clinton's and Barney Frank's and Gerry Studd's affairs were consensual, with people over age.

Not to excuse Foley (or anybody else involved) by any stretch, but Studds' daliance was with a 17-year old male Congressional page. He was subsequently re-elected 5 times before re-tiring from office in 1993

18

It's funny to watch the usual suspects take the latest talking points from the DNC or Kos or wherever they get their lock-step marching orders from. Exhibit A is the Foley scandal.

Questions for Raven and Mummmmon:

In bringing up the Foley scandal do you intend to declare yourselves opposed to homosexuality? Or if you are not opposed to homosexuality per se, do you object to adult homosexuals recruiting those under 18 into their proclivities? Does this mean you find the National Man-Boy Love Association morally repugnant? Do you object to anyone under 18 having sexual relations? Or is this really just another politically, cynically motivated screech-fest in which you wear moral indignation like a costume to be discarded as soon as your moment on stage is over?

19

Cheesekopf: Are you asking rhetorical questions? Stay on track. Joe writes about Republicans being the family-friendly party. I refuted that assertion. Foley is a topical issue, granted, but he's also a very important example of what I'm talking about. The guy was on a committee that drafts legislation to go after online predators - and he was one.

That's not family friendly.

20

In bringing up the Foley scandal do you intend to declare yourselves opposed to homosexuality? Or ...

I'm sorry, when right wingers criticized Clinton for the Monica affair were they declaring themselves opposed to hetrosexuality? No wonder they took such a beating in the poll.s

21

Cheesehead:

Sorry, there's just no way to spin this. Even the folks at Wingnut Daily have come out against Hastert - the writing's on the wall, the fat's in the fire.

Or is this really just another politically, cynically motivated screech-fest in which you wear moral indignation like a costume to be discarded as soon as your moment on stage is over?

And it's not about sex.

It's about power.

And how Republicans use it hypocritically, and completely without any moral compass.

But to answer your questions a bit, I think an adult's using his overwhelming political power to sexually pursue anyone when they've given signals otherwise is wrong (the essence of sexual predation), and in the workplace actionable if there are damages resulting from them. (And that wasn't evidently the case with Bill Clinton so don't even go near that. You'll out yourself as a pro-sexual predator.)

As I noted on my blog, the age of consent is 16; but the law that Foley wrote considers other actions for those under 18.

16 is an "in-between" age: if the pages were 10 years old this would be an open and shut disgusting episode and Foley should be locked up and the key should be thrown away. If the pages were 25, well, there's no question that like Monica Lewinsky, it would be nothing if the pages consented (which is why there was no scandal with Studds - it was a consensual affair though the page was 17), and if the pages didn't consent and Foley pursued them, it would be sexual harassment.

Also, let's repeat what Boonton said:

I'm sorry, when right wingers criticized Clinton for the Monica affair were they declaring themselves opposed to hetrosexuality?

And my answer is: Only insofar as it gets Democrats out of power.

And that's the other part of my answer: the Republican Party has been the single most disastrous organized force in American politics in the past 80 years, and it's time to relegate it to the ash-heap of history, and to send a subpoena to every single elected member, and to root them out of office, and wherever crimes have been committed, to make sure they do hard time.

They have personally subverted the supreme power of the United States, by subverting the right of the American people to be fully informed enough to be able to exercise their political power in an intelligent way, and by subverting the political power of the American people to even exercise their political power in the first place (arresting people who are not Bush supporters at speeches, Florida 2000, Ohio 2004...)

It's time for every last one of them to go, and all their fellow-travelers.

22

Mumon wrote,

And it's not about sex.

It's about power.

and followed this with

there was no scandal with Studds - it was a consensual affair though the page was 17

This is inconsistent and disingenuous. No big deal for a 46 year old congressman to consort with a 17 year old page because he was 17 and not 16, and it was "consensual"?

How about when a 46 year old teacher gets involved with a 17 year old student? OK in your book, Mumon? No scandal?

Give me a break.

23

This is inconsistent and disingenuous. No big deal for a 46 year old congressman to consort with a 17 year old page because he was 17 and not 16, and it was "consensual"?

How about when a 46 year old teacher gets involved with a 17 year old student? OK in your book, Mumon? No scandal?

Indeed there is a bit of disingenousness in the 'power theory'. There are many cases of relationships between an older and younger person where the younger person actually holds more power using their attractiveness to seduce the older person and then threat of exposure to extract things from them. I doubt the family of the old guy who married Anna Nicole felt that HE was victimizing HER...rather the other way around.

So we are left in a situation where some lines have to be drawn even though we acknowledge they are fuzzy around the edges. 17 is different from 16 in a more dramatic way than 25 is different from 24. Whether the line should be drawn at 16 or 18 the fact is Folly himself wrote the law that drew the line he appeared to cross.

24

And now we learn that Foley was engaging in e-sex with a page during a vote on the House floor!

This is going to get a lot worse. Lots of shoes are going to drop. Time for the GOP to do some serious soul-searching over the question of whether holding on to power is worth anything, at any cost.

25

From a Christian perspective it is clear that what Foley did was immoral and wrong. Period. I would not vote for the man if he were my representative. Dhimmicrat scum and (insert your favorite moonbat derrogation for Republican here) scum are all scum alike.

However, the more partisan Dhimmicrats here are proving that to them it really is a screech-fest designed to leverage political power. Thanks for clearing that point up, guys.

26

berean77 :

Believe it or not the age of consent and marriage in this country in some places was as low as 14.

And in the reddest of red areas, too.

So it's more than a bit hypocritical to say "Ooh! Grown man with a 17 year old! Baaaad!"

Tell that to Jimmy Swaggert's cousin Jerry Lee Lewis.

27

Cheesehead:

Dhimmicrats here are proving that to them it really is a screech-fest designed to leverage political power. Thanks for clearing that point up, guys.

And why not? People like you cannot even say "Democrats."

Republicans don't deserve to be in power, they should be registered as sex-offenders.

28

So it's more than a bit hypocritical to say "Ooh! Grown man with a 17 year old! Baaaad!"

You missed the point again, Mumon.

It's one thing for a 17-yr old to marry a 14 yr old.

It's another thing for a 46 year old Congressman, in a position of tremendous power and prestige, to get involved with a 17 year old. It is a situation ripe for abuse.

You didn't answer my question, but it appears we can assume you're cool with the 46 yr old teacher getting it on with the 17 yr old student.

Which means we're on different planets. Not much more to say.

29

Raven raved:

Joe writes about Republicans being the family-friendly party. I refuted that assertion.

You didn't refute anything. Joe merely pointed out a striking statistical correlation, and invited his readers to "ponder why the GOP is preferred by voters with traditional family structures."

You may not agree that Republicans are "family-friendly" (a term Joe did not use) for your own reasons. But then, what is your explanation for this voting pattern?

30

berean77:

It's one thing for a 17-yr old to marry a 14 yr old.

Actually, I was talking about a 23 year old who married his 13 year old cousin once removed.

And actually I know someone from high school who married their teacher - probably 15 years apart.

They've been happily married for decades.

So yeah, I guess you are on a different planet.

31

Mumon opines "Republicans don't deserve to be in power, they should be registered as sex-offenders."

Statements like this only prove that your incapable of intelligent political debate. Or for that matter of intelligent thought generally.

32

"But then, what is your explanation for this voting pattern?"

I think the voting pattern is in the process of changing. The polls and surveys I'm tracking show widespread disaffection with the Republican Party, which appears to have no interest in doing anything except coddling the super-wealthy and large corporations. This used to be a tendency of the party, but now it has become their raison d'etre.

The Democratic platform is focused, in contrast, on things that would very much benefit an American family. Jobs, healthcare, education feature prominently on this year's agenda. So a lot of those "safety moms" who were whipped into a frenzy of fear and blind hysteria by the administration's wildly overblown terrorist rhetoric appear to be coming to their senses.

I hope so, because this November is going to be extremely important if we're going to have a chance of getting this country back on track. Two more years of the Rubberstampers having a completely free hand would make certain critical problems - like debt and deficits - exponentially more difficult to correct.

33

(which is why there was no scandal with Studds - it was a consensual affair though the page was 17)

So Foley's crime was that the kid said no? If he had said yes, no problem? Rii-ght.

34

Mumon,

So you know someone who married their teacher. Were they involved while the student was still in high school? Or did they get involved after graduation? Big difference. Any high school teacher who tried to date a student would be fired - even in this permissive age.

Just because something worked out well on occasion is no defense of it in principle. It's like defending drunken driving by saying you know someone who drove drunk for years and never had an accident.

Your Jerry Lee Lewis reference - are you touting this as a good example?

Or are you just attempting some lame linkage, i.e., Jerry Lee Lewis... embarrassing marriage circumstances... cousin of Jimmy Swaggart... Religious Right!, Hypocrisy! Etc., etc.

Maybe you could come up with something more current, you know, just for effect.

35

It should be pointed out that the Foley scandal is asymmetrical with regard to instances in the past of Democrats getting caught dallying and whatnot. So, for the record, it should be said that yes, it is worse when Republicans get caught doing things like this. No, it's not fair, but that's what you get when you hold up the Republicans as the "values" people, the "morals" people, the blue-stockinged finger-waggers who show up at a brain-dead woman's bedside and set themselves to work at amending the Constitution over gay marriage.

It's the Republicans, after all, who claim to be the Official Voice of Conservative Christians, and if you sent your son or daughter to work as a page on Capitol Hill, you shouldn't expect the stalwart and trustworthy, honest and ethical Republicans to prey upon your progeny. Your children ought not need protection from GOP lawmakers.

Thus, when one of them is revealed to be a pedophile, it puts paid to all the phony claims of virtuousity - especially when their leaders are shown to be actively working to cover up the crime. The Democrats, for their part, just aren't that interested in breaking into bedrooms and prosecuting victimless crimes. While pedophilia is equally criminal whether the miscreant sits on the right or left of the aisle, the level of scandal and the severity of punishment do take affiliation into account.

'Cause life ain't fair.

36

So you know someone who married their teacher. Were they involved while the student was still in high school? Or did they get involved after graduation? Big difference. Any high school teacher who tried to date a student would be fired - even in this permissive age.

Actually this 'age' is much less permissive than the past. Today not only is dating a student an offense that can get a teacher terminated but on many college campuses there are rules that prohibit professors from dating students even if the students are not taking the professors classes or are even majoring in their departments. This is in sharp contract to the very recent past where it was not unusual to meet couples who first meet as teacher and student.

Just because something worked out well on occasion is no defense of it in principle. It's like defending drunken driving by saying you know someone who drove drunk for years and never had an accident.

Very true but I would question the principle here. I do not think all older-younger relationships are automatically exploitive and I don't buy the arguments that even if they are the exploitation always runs in the direction of the older exploiting the younger.

I think because HS is much more closed there is good reason to prohibit teachers from dating students even if such relationships would otherwise be legal but I think many college have gone a bit too far. This is not like drunk driving.

Raven
Thus, when one of them is revealed to be a pedophile, it puts paid to all the phony claims of virtuousity - especially when their leaders are shown to be actively working to cover up the crime. The Democrats, for their part, just aren't that interested in breaking into bedrooms and prosecuting victimless crimes. While pedophilia is equally criminal whether the miscreant sits on the right or left of the aisle, the level of scandal and the severity of punishment do take affiliation into account.

I think you're going too far here. There is no evidence that this man is a pedophile. There is no evidence that what he did was even a crime as opposed to just being grossly improper. The evidence of what other leaders knew is also less than clear. From what I've read some of the earlier emails that 'raised concern' had nothing in them that was overtly sexual and only seemed to be a bit too 'chummy' (i.e. what did you do in the summer? sounds fun! send me a picture if you got one). Congressmen are leaders in their own right. The House leader is not some type of CEO whose job it is to supervise all the members of his parties as if he is their boss.

37

Joe Carter, interesting data here. Let us know if any conclusions that are more robust comes out of the research.

38

I think you're going too far here. There is no evidence that this man is a pedophile. There is no evidence that what he did was even a crime as opposed to just being grossly improper.

Depends on what you mean by "pedophile." I'm using the term as indicating that we have 52 IMs that detail graphic depictions of hardcore sex acts, requests for meetings, references to past meetings, etc. Fact is, if a "normal" person got busted for activity like this, he or she would be arrested on the spot for solicitation of a minor.

More to the point, the specific legislation Foley drafted himself makes what he did a Federal offense. Y'know, there should be a group of people you figure you could trust your kids to - clergy, scout masters, members of Congress. When they turn out to be pederasts, outrage is to be expected. If you can't trust the people who draft our system of law, who can you trust?

39

Depends on what you mean by "pedophile."...

I'm mean by it what the term actually means, one who has or desires to have sex with children. There is a difference between minors and children both in law and in our everyday commonsense understanding of things.

More to the point, the specific legislation Foley drafted himself makes what he did a Federal offense. Y'know, there should be a group of people you figure you could trust your kids to - clergy, scout masters, members of Congress. When they turn out to be pederasts, outrage is to be expected. If you can't trust the people who draft our system of law, who can you trust?

Indeed it is true that it appears he may have violated the law he himself wrote. It would hardly be the first time someone has played the hypocrite. There still remains a real difference between the wrongs that Foley did and the pedophilic rapes that some Catholic clergy engaged in. Likewise the 'coverup' also falls short of such seriousness.

You and Joe seem to be arguing a straw man here. No one ever said what Foley did wasn't wrong. As I pointed out myself with no fewer than 3 different quotes from Sullivan no one is making any excuses for Foley.

40

Boonton: Before your points can be completely addressed, we need to have a full investigation of what, exactly, Foley has done. Has he met with minors and molested them physically? We don't know. We do that he has made specific attempts to do so. We know he was turned away from the page dorm, drunk, one evening. We know some of the IMs are attempts to set up physical meetings - and that is a prosecutable crime.

Once you are aware of a crime, not reporting it is an "accessory after the fact" violation and can be prosecuted as well. But the Republican leadership needs to step down now if (when) it is proven that they had knowledge of Foley's behavior because of their violation of public trust. There are also in locus parentis issues as well.

And when you say we have "no evidence" of pedophilia on Foley's part, I assume you're joking. It's the evidence we have in hand already that is driving the current investigations. By your own definition, he "desires" to have sex with minors. If your quibble is with minors/children distinctions, we can go with pederasty.

Right now, I'm thoroughly enjoying the Hastert Deathwatch. Popcorn, please.

41

Boonton: Before your points can be completely addressed, we need to have a full investigation of what, exactly, Foley has done. Has he met with minors and molested them physically? We don't know. We do that he has made specific attempts to do so. We know he was turned away from the page dorm, drunk, one evening. We know some of the IMs are attempts to set up physical meetings - and that is a prosecutable crime.

Errr, no before you accuse someone of being a pedophile you must show that he meets the definition of a pedophile. If I accused you of being a murderer I have to actually show you killed someone. Not dismiss your claims of innocence by saying "before your points can be completely addressed we need a full investigation".

We have no evidence that Foley ever molested anyone. The crimes there is evidence he violated are on the low side of the scale of sex-related crimes and may not even be under that. I'm not excusing Foley here just being realistic.

Once you are aware of a crime, not reporting it is an "accessory after the fact" violation and can be prosecuted as well. But the Republican leadership needs to step down now if (when) it is proven that they had knowledge of Foley's behavior because of their violation of public trust. There are also in locus parentis issues as well.

According to http://www.lectlaw.com/def/a007.htm:

ACCESSORY AFTER THE FACT - Whoever, knowing that an offense has been committed, receives, relieves, comforts or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial or punishment, is an accessory after the fact; one who knowing a felony to have been committed by another, receives, relieves, comforts, or assists the felon in order to hinder the felon's apprehension, trial, or punishment. U.S.C. 18

The above does not define accessory after the fact as only failing to report an offense. To be an accessory one has to go beyond simply not reporting and actively help the criminal cover up his crime or evade detection (for example, by helping him bury a body).

I haven't seen any evidence that accessory after the fact fits this case at all. No one has asserted that other Republicans tried to erase or cover up the records of Foley's emails and IMs. No one has asserted that they attempted to silence witnesses or whatnot.

I'm not going to tell you that Foley's leaders did not fall down on the job. From what I've read the initial emails that sparked concern did not appear to contain anything all that bad but the facts are still coming in.

42

Yeesh. How does anyone stand to read the Kos quotes from the dimwittocrats here? O well; just be reassured that, in line with the marriage/family stats in the article discussed, demographics is destiny: the dims are doomed. Religionists will inherit the earth. The dims (those few who are left in 20 yrs) just better hope that the religionists around them are of the fundie Christian type, rather than the fundie Muslim type...

43

You should all take the time to read this.

Who Knew Mark Foley was a Closeted Democrat? which can be viewed at:

http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=24770 .

44

Mummmy: "And why not? People like you cannot even say 'Democrats.' "

That's pretty rich coming from you. This is first time I have ever seen you not use one of your made-up terms for Republicans. If that is the best you can do for a rejoinder the facts speak for themselves.

Were you able to write that with a straight face? My irony meter cannot even register that high.

45

Mumon,

Are you on some kind of medication we should be aware of?

46

Mumon (is that a name?) opines:

"Heh. right....I wouldn't let my kid within 50 feet of a Republican. I think their propsensity to be predators and to be less than safe with their staff (remember Joe Scarborough?) means we be able to find out if any Republicans live in our area by going on line, and checking their criminal records."

Meanwhile in the Democratic Party:

A married Democratic mayor can be caught smoking crack cocaine with a prostitute and, even after he is convicted and sentenced to prison, get reelected.

A married Democratic senator who leaves a party with a single young woman and gets into a drunk-driving accident that kills her does not merely avoid jail time, but retains his Senate seat and indeed goes on to become one of the most powerful politicians in his party.

The entire Democratic Party is caught accepting millions in illegal foreign campaign donations and Chinagate, the biggest influence-peddling scandal in U.S. history, morphs into a bipartisan referendum on campaign finance reform!

Being a Democrat is often like holding the "get out of jail free" card. And this has been going on for more than 200 years.

Info from Donkey Cons: Sex, Crimes and Corruption in the Democratic Party.

http://www.donkeycons.com/index.htm

I would add to that list the fact that 911 happenned because the last Democrat Pres spent 8 years ignoring the growing threat of Al-Qaeda because he was too busy finding new uses for cigars and interns.

Yet despie the above list of crimes against the American people Mumon, an individual to gutless to post under his/her/its own name, would have us believe that the entire Republican Party is full of criminals and perverts and needs to be exterminated.

I would think that selling US national soveriegnty to communist China and ignoring an 8 year escalation in terrorist warfare against US citizens becuase Clinton was busy screwing Monica are crimes.

But I guess in the crazed leftist tin-foil hat wearing Jew hating world of Mumon and Kos crimes not just against individuals but against US national security just arent important :)

47

The scandals are just getting wound up. The conservative community is in a tizzy and the Libs and Lefties are going nuts with their new-found success in a matured ability to get away with spin.

48

The scandals are just getting wound up. The conservative community is in a tizzy and the Libs and Lefties are going nuts with their new-found success in a matured ability to get away with spin.

49

The first stage of a �150m investment in regional museums is praised for boosting visitor numbers...

50

The first stage of a �150m investment in regional museums is praised for boosting visitor numbers...

51

Doctor Who takes three prizes at the National Television Awards in a repeat of its success last year...

52

Colombia's vice president is "baffled" by Kate Moss's success following cocaine allegations...

53

Colombia's vice president is "baffled" by Kate Moss's success following cocaine allegations...

54

Veteran actor William Franklyn, known for voicing the 1960s Schweppes TV adverts, dies aged 81...

55

Veteran actor William Franklyn, known for voicing the 1960s Schweppes TV adverts, dies aged 81...

56

Veteran actor William Franklyn, known for voicing the 1960s Schweppes TV adverts, dies aged 81...

57

Microsoft and Peter Jackson postpone the making of a film based on the Halo video game after backers pull out...

58

sitdrongetr

59

sitdrongetr