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.”

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.

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

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?

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.

Good point!

There will be an only Ewe.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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?

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.

Jeez...I would hope we could rise above rampant gossip mag speculation. Latching onto this type of thing before anything is known, is a good way to garner sympathy for him and make it look like Dems are willing to politicize anything...yes we know that's what THEY do, but at some point there has to be a line drawn, if for nothing else, common sense and decency.

The plot thickens. But I agree we should not go near this. Let the sharks have him.

Hmmm. Perhaps that's too blood-thirsty. Maybe I do need "Charm School".

Absolutely.

I have to remark on how so many on the Left are eager to rush right into traps, even those that aren't even set up by the opposition.

I disagree. The issue is fair game since they hold themselves out to be anti gay and MORAL CHRISTIANS in the way they term it. Is it allright for them to deamonize a whole class of people they happen to belong to?

No, you were right the first time!

This thread should not even be on the board.

From what I have read, due to the expensive living costs in DC/Georgetown, the vast majority of congress people have roommates and / or just a bed in a apartment.

Then have their real home in their state.

As I am about the only one on this board (who is a liberal), who despises Bill Clinton and what he did, I venture it is mighty hypocritical to start in on any other one.
This whole thing is because Foley is a pediophile, not that he is gay (after all, no one cared McGreevey was gay, but that he was corrupt).

One would think that a person the age of a father or grandfather attacking a younger person is the issue.

Another reason this either/or thing don't work. Throw them all out. Dems/REpubs.
they are all perverts in some way or another.

It's why Bill Clinton did not quit.

You know the real reason? Because he had no 2nd home to go to.

There is what you think is proper justice and what is going to play in Peoria.

And trying to paint Hastert as gay over this is going to play like hypocritical gay-bashing in Peoria, particularly with a scandal that we should exercise the UTMOST CARE not to paint as a "gay thing," for both practical political and principled moral reasons.

How does the plot thicken? Not very liberal like to care if someone is gay or not.

It appears this is the height of hypocricy.

You give a pass to slime Clinton, and want to out people?
I don't see how you can advocate both with a straight face.
Give Clinton up, it would be so much easier to then say its not either/or

Who put a bee in your bonnet today Graham? And, what the hell are you talking about? If those hypocrites are being hoisted on their own petard, I should care? I don't care if they are gay or not. I never cared about those things. I am against prying into people's private life. I hated what they did to Bill Clinton, while at the same time being disgusted he would cheat on Hillary and embarrass his family like that, and lie to us when it came out. But it came out due to a group of lowlife scum using 70 million dollars of the taxpayer's money to dig it out. These a**holes who are in trouble now, are the same hypocrites that went after Clinton. They should get their comuppence. But not by anything we do. I don't want to sink to their level, so I said we should not touch it! So why attack me?

Other than your mysterious obsession with Clinton (just how is he relevant to this) I think that you are absolutely right about this, Graham.

And even on the gay-baiting thing (I don't know how much of a gay-baiter Hastert is, or for that matter whether or not he is relatively tolerant) we should slam such people on that issue, not on whether they are gay or not. (But I can somewhat understand the feelings of those gays who are angry with closet gays hypocritically joining the gay-baiters.)

If the sharks get him on this, I wouldn't defend him, I would just point out the issues on which he deserves to pay.

I'm still trying to pick my jaw up off the ground on this one, Arne. I thought the Republicans were the ones screaming about gay marriage and all that. It's just too ironic, and too funny, how big of hypocrites some of them are!

I would say that our standard of behavior shouldn't be that we should behave in a tad more principled way than the Republicans. (We can still use very aggressive tactics.) I do not think that we should emulate their hypocrisy, that is not the way to win, either on strictly moral grounds or strictly practical grounds.

Silver, my concern is most assuredly not based on any sympathy for Hastert or any of the rest of them. Its based on the fact that when you sling mud invariably the wind shifts and you end up covered in the mud you directed at others.

They are destroying themselves. Stand back and enjoy the show. Their base will do them in this time.

AND .. just suppose there is nothing to this article about Hastert's living arrangements in DC ? It could serve to ameliorate the anger directed at the GOP right now by their own and see it turned on the Dems. In any event it will most assuredly dilute the effect of the present debacle.

I can remember reading an article in the Boston Globe a long time ago about two Mass. Congressmen who shared an apartment in DC. And no, neither was named Barney Frank or Gerry Studds.

It is an expensive place, and some people like to save money. (One of those Congressmen, Boland, represented the Springfield area, a relatively inexpensive area.)

I used to believe in the "moral approach" until I watched Karl Rove ram-rod us for the past 6 years.

You take the moral high ground for both of us on this one, Arne. I think it's funny as all get out.

Right, I'd concentrate on him having been a wrestling coach, since he's known the rules of being responsible for groups of teens most of his adult life he knew how wrong the cover up was, he knew he was REQUIRED to hand over he information to the authorities.

Oh, you mean like swift-boating? Max Cleland? That sort of thing. Is there a place on any of the democratic party that ISN'T covered with mud right now from all that mud that's been slinging our way for the past 6 + years?

It's FRIDAY! It's been a gruesome, horrible week! I want to kick back and have a good ironic chuckle on this one! :pumpkin:

Actually, after this week, I don't find much of anything funny. But there's a certain dark, black humor I derive from reading this about Hastert. A certain "what goes around comes around" comeuppance kind of feel to it.

I'm not saying let's play nice and be polite. Look at the Bible. Jesus and the Old Testament prophets didn't always play nice and act polite. They were often pretty aggressive.

But we can still take the moral high ground. From that high ground we can more easily defeat our enemies. That's a pretty basic military principle as well.

Exactly.

This is what I meant by eagerly walking into traps.

Gaby, that's understandable and human but its not very smart if you will excuse my being blunt.

Tit for Tat may feel good for the moment but it doesn't win anything. In fact most times it guarantees failure because one is so busy getting even that they lose sight of the goal. And it is guaranteed to rally the opposition forces.

Oh, all right. I see your point. I was just wanting to kick up my heels a bit and try to forget all about this past week. But I'll mind my manners - at least until tonight after everybody's had a few drinks...

If she just wants to chuckle to herself, that is one thing. But trying to use this in public would be quite another.

But as you, Tomyhe, I and even Mr. Jim have pointed out, we don't even know that this means anything about him other than he's trying to save some money. People might be chuckling over nothing.

I am firmly in CO's corner here- along with Brookiesgram, Arne, Tomhye...
and whoever has responded in kind in the time it took me to type this post.

a more positive direction for the amusement and enjoyment would be to sit back and watch the GOP and their circular firing squad which is now fully loaded and firing. Its a refreshing change from watching Dems do it as they have so often in the past with the inevitable results.

Its their turn. Don't distract their attention from their targets.

and let's hope they all aim low.

OK, will do.

Well, it was funny for the whole 1 1/2 minute or so I got to enjoy it without my cortex getting involved. sigh...

Nothing says you can't enjoy it Gaby But I'm a skeptic and I wouldn't put it past Rove, for example, to be throwing things like this out there to do as I said ... distract and redeploy forces.

I agree, CO. Seems like he's done this to us before. Better to not get in their way, as you say, when they're in a middle of a circular firing squad.

Well, I'll just go finish up the next few hours of the week's work and then check in later tonight.

Well, I am a fairly outspoken advocate of outing closeted gay Republicans, but I don't think it's something the Democratic Party or other politicians should touch. (Although it should be noted that apparently somebody in his own party turned in Foley, for whatever reasons.)

Let the gay press or some left-wing nutcase blogger do it.

However, if I were going to run with this, I would want more evidence than Hastert sharing an apartment with his aides in Washington. Does he go to gay bars, have a boyfriend, etc.? Well, if nothing else, it would prove gay men come in all shapes and sizes

10.05.2006

Closeted Gay Republicans and a Party in Political Free-Fall
by Lawrence O'Donnell

The LA Times has outed Kirk Fordham today. He will not be the last closeted gay Republican outed by this scandal.

Today's NY Times has a chart that outlines the "key communications" in the House of Representatives about Mark Foley's inappropriate contact with pages. More than one of the names in the chart, which includes Kirk Fordham, are rumored to be closeted gay Republicans who have been working at the highest levels of the Republican leadership.
They have been looking at their names in print for the last couple of days and no doubt fearing for their futures in a Party that is in political free-fall.

Are ambitious closeted gay Republican officials, the most reliable people Speaker Hastert could have delegated the Foley problem to last year? Obviously not. Heat on a closeted gay Republican in the House is heat on all closeted gay Republicans in the House. The most innocent Foley emails were enough to worry the parents of the recipient. They were enough to worry the closeted gay Republicans too. But the closeted gay Republicans were perfectly positioned in the House to make the problem disappear.

Now two Republican staffers are locked in a credibility contest: it's Kirk Fordham v. Scott Palmer, Hastert's chief of staff. Palmer flatly denies that Fordham warned him about Foley. Hastert's political life depends entirely on Scott Palmer's credibility. I can't find anyone in Washington who knows Palmer who thinks his credibility can survive this test.

It's no accident that the first call for Hastert's resignation came from Tony Blankley, Newt Gingrich's former press secretary. Tony knows that the scandal cannot die as long as Hastert and his staff are still in the building.

The Republican base--the Evangelical get-out-the-vote troops--are going to be devastated when they discover how many closeted gay Republicans were involved in policing Mark Foley in the House of Representatives. Republican House members know this. That's why momentum is building for a very quick House cleaning and a new Speaker by next week.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-odo...s-_b_31040.html