10.12.06 HOW ROVE TWISTED FOLEY'S ARM: It seems increasingly clear that the GOP congressional leadership, eager for every safe incumbent in the House to run for re-election, looked the other way as evidence accumulated that Mark Foley had a thing for pages. Holding onto his seat became more important than confronting him over his extracurricular activities. But there's more to the story of why Foley stood for re-election this year. Yesterday, a source close to Foley explained to THE NEW REPUBLIC that in early 2006 the congressman had all but decided to retire from the House and set up shop on K Street. "Mark's a friend of mine," says this source. "He told me, 'I'm thinking about getting out of it and becoming a lobbyist.'" But when Foley's friend saw the Congressman again this spring, something had changed. To the source's surprise, Foley told him he would indeed be standing for re-election. What happened? Karl Rove intervened. According to the source, Foley said he was being pressured by "the White House and Rove gang," who insisted that Foley run. If he didn't, Foley was told, it might impact his lobbying career. "He said, 'The White House made it very clear I have to run,'" explains Foley's friend, adding that Foley told him that the White House promised that if Foley served for two more years it would "enhance his success" as a lobbyist. "I said, 'I thought you wanted out of this?' And he said, 'I do, but they're scared of losing the House and the thought of two years of Congressional hearings, so I have two more years of duty.'" The White House declined a request for comment on the matter, but obviously the plan hasn't worked out quite as Rove hoped it would. --Ryan Lizza http://www.tnr.com/blog/theplank?pid=47854
I tend to doubt the accuracy of the story. For starters, not only in my own Congressional campaign but on the successful campaigns I've been involved with, Rove is a non entity. Completely. His gig is Bush and nobody else. Mahlman and Hastert are a different story. They're the point guys on House candidates. Further, prior to this scandal, Florida's 16th Congressional was a "safe" seat for the GOP. No need for Foley or anyone else to keep it away from the Dems. Thirdly, EVERYONE IN POLITICS knew Foley was a homosexual. He was virtually out of the closet. He was asked point blank in 2003 by the press and it led to his withdrawal from running for the vacant Graham seat. He was damaged goods. If anything I'm betting revelations will come out that he was been asked NOT to run. Obviously the powers that be knew how radio active his sexual compulsions were becoming.....
You are suggesting that the story is false, or that Foley is a liar? If the latter, then since you have no proof of a lie, you must be okay with those who call Mr. Bush a liar.....
Foley doesn't appear to be the most honest guy in world does he? Foley's not quoted however. His "friend" is. 99% of articles I read with un-named, anonymous sources, turn out to be bullshit. (as opposed to the 50% that are just "normal" bs) The press loves those "sources" because they can print lies/distortions/dis-information with carte blanche. Not to mention reporters can just fabricate out of whole cloth. "A senior aide close to the President".....Huh? Do we KNOW this person exists? Hell no we don't. That's why the mainstream media's criticism of bloggers and the lack of fact checking is laughable. Much in the press today rivals anonymous message board banter. You're the kind of guy who must believe Jennifer Aniston and Vince Vaughn were an "item" rather than a pretend-couple using the media to promote a film....
Did we catch Foley in a lie yet? Did he deny anything yet that we can show to be false? So you are in effect saying it is okay to call Mr. Bush a liar?
What IS very believable about the story is the part about quitting to become a lobbyist. The road to riches...and REAL power.
OT, but does the above apply to "senior intelligence officials" and "british intelligence" and "classified intelligence resources" and "cia informants" and whatever other bullshit was/is cited to justify iraq/iran/afghanistan/etc.? if so, how do you reconcile that with your support for the neocons' wars?