Hastert lives "Bachelor-like" existence, Just him and two male aids Options

[MrJim]

Hastert Lives Bachelorlike Existence with 2 “Aides”
I think I see a pattern starting to emerge here.

Hastert Vows to Overcome Scandal
http://www.thehollywoodliberal.com/2006/10...2-assistants-2/

Excerpt:
Mr. Hastert, a former schoolteacher and wrestling coach, is more at home in Illinois than in Washington, traveling back to the state almost every weekend with Scott Palmer, his chief of staff, and Mike Stokke, his deputy chief of staff. When Congress is in session, the two aides and Mr. Hastert share a townhouse near the Capitol, living a bachelorlike existence. The speaker once boasted that neither he nor his roommates had cooked a meal since 1986, preferring to dine out.
It is Mr. Palmer and Mr. Stokke who are now at the center of a House inquiry into when the speaker’s office became aware of Mr. Foley’s conduct. Mr. Stokke offered his resignation this week, an aide said, but Mr. Hastert declined to accept it.

H.L.s Take:
So is this why he’s known about Foley for all these years, and done nothing? Was he afraid that there could be some negative “blow” back if he spoke up. 3 rich men who could easily afford their own places all living together, and where is Hastert’s wife while he is living with 2 dudes. I see in another story she stays at a hotel.
Palmer and Stokke: “Nail me you sweaty wrestler…. I mean pin me.”

[Arneoker]

This is the kind of thing that I'd be careful about pushing. If others make a big deal about it and it hurts his image, I wouldn't throw him a life preserver. If I were a Democratic leader and were asked about to comment about this I would answer, "The real issue is Speaker Hastert's negligence in taking care of this despicable matter concerning Congressman Foley." Personally I don't care what Hastert does in his off-hours, as long as it all involves consensual activity when others are involved and that none are minors or people who are in a position to be exploited by him.

[Silver]

Haha, the Republican party is really the closet gay party. Oh the sweet irony.

[tomhye]

I have mixed feelings, I don't like this getting into peoples private lives stuff but maybe this has to be looked at to find the patterns for what else he's covered up. In other words is it always political? Personal gain? Leverage? Paying blackmail?

But if this gets pushed he'll spend more time with his wife, does she deserve to be that much of a victim?

[ConcernedObserve...]

If Dems and their supporters are half smart they won't touch this one with a ten foot pole. Hastert's sexual orientation is not the issue. Nor is the fact he shares accommodation with two staffers indicative of anything other than perhaps convenience.

Personally I don't care if Hastert likes goats as long as he does it on his own time and doesn't allow it to influence his positions on animal welfare.

This post has been edited by ConcernedObserver: Oct 6 2006, 09:14 AM

[Arneoker]

  But if this gets pushed he'll spend more time with his wife, does she deserve to be that much of a victim?

Good point!

[FormerCIA]

If Dems and their supporters are half smart they won't touch this one with a ten foot pole.  Hastert's sexual orientation is not the issue. Nor is the fact he shares accommodation with two staffers indicative of anything other than  perhaps convenience.

Personally I don't care if Hastert likes goats as long as he does it on his own time and doesn't allow it to influence his positions on animal welfare.

There will be an only Ewe.

[Arneoker]

If Dems and their supporters are half smart they won't touch this one with a ten foot pole.  Hastert's sexual orientation is not the issue. Nor is the fact he shares accommodation with two staffers indicative of anything other than  perhaps convenience.

Personally I don't care if Hastert likes goats as long as he does it on his own time and doesn't allow it to influence his positions on animal welfare.

I agree.

It doesn't seem like the Democrats need to do any reaching at all, using dubious "issues" such as this, to discredit this man. In fact he seems to be doing a marvelous job of doing that himself.

[Silver]

Sorry I just don't have the sympathy some of you guys do. These peope have trashed the economy, the constitution, and profited all along the way while claiming gays are evil. This sort of thing is fair game in my opinion, only because the closet Repubs made it fair game when they started running their elections based on banning gay marriage. Mark my words, if you give them some slack they're gonna use that slack and turn around and give you an upper cut to the gut.

[tomhye]

Sorry I just don't have the sympathy some of you guys do. These peope have trashed the economy, the constitution, and profited all along the way while claiming gays are evil. This sort of thing is fair game in my opinion, only because the closet Repubs made it fair game when they started running their elections based on banning gay marriage. Mark my words, if you give them some slack they're gonna use that slack and turn around and give you an upper cut to the gut.

I don 't think any of us have any sympathy for Hastert, I'll be laughing when the punk gets life without parole. This approach can make the right even more homophobic, do you care about those victims? This approach leads to more tabloid politics, is that a result worth avoiding? This approach can make it look like he was right saying he was set up by Democrats, do you want to give him political advantage?

Just because it's fair game doesn't mean it's a good idea.

Now if he gets pressure on it from other quarters turning it into a question of where to look for his other coverups is productive.

[MrJim]

First of all, this thing was printed in a Hollywood Gossip column type thing, so it may not have much credibility.

But if it does, the issue is not so much whether Hastert is gay, but rather did he cover up Foley to protect himself? Then hiding his sexual preferences means that he is willing to keep a sexual predator as the head of the Congressional Committee supposedly intended to prevent such predation. And that is criminal.

This post has been edited by MrJim: Oct 6 2006, 09:33 AM

[brookiesgram]

If Dems and their supporters are half smart they won't touch this one with a ten foot pole.  Hastert's sexual orientation is not the issue. Nor is the fact he shares accommodation with two staffers indicative of anything other than  perhaps convenience.

Personally I don't care if Hastert likes goats as long as he does it on his own time and doesn't allow it to influence his positions on animal welfare.

I agree 100%. I would stay as far away from this as possible.

[david sobien]

It is an issue since it goes to motive in covering for Foley. If Foley is just one of their BOYS their actions are explained.

[Arneoker]

Sorry I just don't have the sympathy some of you guys do. These peope have trashed the economy, the constitution, and profited all along the way while claiming gays are evil. This sort of thing is fair game in my opinion, only because the closet Repubs made it fair game when they started running their elections based on banning gay marriage. Mark my words, if you give them some slack they're gonna use that slack and turn around and give you an upper cut to the gut.

You just don't get it! No one has sympathy for this man!

First of all, we don't know this shows that Hastert is gay. Second of all, any gayness of his would have nothing to do with this scandal!

Now I understand the hypocrisy argument for outing closet gay Republicans. But I remember something that a former gay forum member said, Underbear. Now Underbear was hardly a moderate of any sort. But he said that the only people who should out these closet gays are gays themselves, otherwise it looks like gay bashing.

I would not advise that gay people actually out him, but at this point I am not going to spend much effort arguing that (although I have before on this general issue). But coming back to my first two points, this doesn't show that he is gay, and his gayness has nothing to do with this scandal. Even if someone thought he should be outed, to out him now would simply emphasize the so-called "gay angle" of this scandal, which should be minimized. And the Right would seem to have some basis to charging Democrats with hypocritically gay bashing.

[Arneoker]

It is an issue since it goes to motive in covering for Foley. If Foley is just one of their BOYS their actions are explained.

No, Hastert's actions are explained by the motive of not wanting to expose behavior that might be politically damaging to House Republicans.

[MrJim]

First of all, we don't know this shows that Hastert is gay. Second of all, any gayness of his would have nothing to do with this scandal!

It may have a lot to do with the scandal. But we are getting way ahead of ourselves.

[Arneoker]

First of all, this thing was printed in a Hollywood Gossip column type thing, so it may not have much credibility.

But if it does, the issue is not so much whether Hastert is gay, but rather did he cover up Foley to protect himself?  Then hiding his sexual preferences means that he is willing to keep a sexual predator as the head of the Congressional Committee supposedly intended to prevent such predation. And that is criminal.

You are thinking that Hastert might have been worried about Foley outing him? I suppose it's possible, although I think it just as likely, if not more, that Hastert would have been careful to have concealed that fact from Foley. I would want evidence that Foley knew that he was gay and that Hastert was worried about that before pushing that theory, even if I knew for an absolute fact that Hastert was gay.

[Arneoker]

In line with what Tomyhe has been talking about, isn't it just as likely that Foley knew something about these illegal Turkish contributions to Hastert?

[david sobien]

I am sure there were multiple motives taken into consideration by top Republicans. Foley raised lots of campaign cash from his rich district. Then there is avoiding the current stink and exposure that developed. But I think one motive is that Foley was one of their BOYS also. I am not anti gay. Those reasons just appear to be what occured.

[Arneoker]

I am sure there were multiple motives taken into consideration by top Republicans. Foley raised lots of campaign cash from his rich district. Then there is avoiding the current stink and exposure that developed. But I think one motive is that Foley was one of their BOYS also. I am not anti gay. Those reasons just appear to be what occured.

No, those reasons don't appear to be what occured! The most you can say is these reasons appear to be something that could explain what has gone on.