Worst October Surprise, Ever - Patrick Godfrey, The American Thinker; Nothing New Under the Sun - Dean Barnett, Townhall; Democrats' Plan to Out Gay Republicans - Rush Limbaugh, RushLimbaugh.com......

When I wrote about "outing" yesterday I hadn't read this post, which has a very different view of what the word means. While I thought the term involved disclosing the homosexuality of someone who was trying to be discrete and......

But had I been in government service at the time, I think it should have been grounds for at the very least a dressing down by my boss or even the man on the street, had he found out. Or if it was not the first time that I had done such a thing. I should be fired.

Notice two things above.

I didn't specify male or female in my "fling"
I didn't specify what level of government service.

Papa Ray
West Texas
USA

"...the important issue–which Republican staff people, over the last seven years or so, knew about Foley's harassment of the pages?"

Isn't it equally important to know which Democrats knew, as well? Or is your intent merely partisan?

James,

"...there are some legal and moral distinctions between coming on to a grown-up versus an adolescent."

There are obviously some legal distinctions between 16 and 18, but morally or otherwise the difference is minimal.

Or that a former page and a congressman were, by mutual consent exchanging an adolescent, pitifully juvenile, lavender-tinged instant message for over an hour.

Let's assume they uncovered the im's. Couldn't it be construed as "gay bashing" to publicize those "private communications" among consenting adults?

No crime was committed, nor, under the circumstances was any House rule violated since Foley's correspondent was no longer a House Page.

Please give us some facts and not just cant.

Who said they were? The point is that they obviously called for further investigation. Which didn't happen.

I think all of Congress should open their e-mails for comparison as well as their conduct toward any current of former pages.

I hope the GOP don’t fall for the media pressure and knee jerk reactions to throw Hastert to the wolves.

None of the people linked above, and certainly not me, are dismissing Foley's behavior or that of the Republican leadership. Indeed, I called for Hastert's ouster days ago.

But I do want to mention that I'm a little bothered that there is no expectation out of the other correspondant.

Does anyone above the age of 12 not realize that these missive are vulnerable?

Were they paper notes passed back and forth, they'd be vulnerable.

At what point is the other correspondant responsible for his identity?

It's not like someone had to work REALLY HARD and sleuthful to get the truth.

He got the truth while sitting in his freaking comfy chair.

PLEASE do not take this to mean that I dismiss Foley's predatory behavior. But I think this type of thought every time some "anonymous" web user complains that they are really not as anonymous as they though.

My first thought is, "Well, duuuuuuuuhhhhhhhhh."

News Foley IMs: an page-authored online prank gone awry? (Drudge) Hastert Highlights: • First heard Foley's explicit language from Instant Messages this past Friday • Doesn't know who knew what when--that's the purpose of the various investigat...

I think listing the name without the person's consent is a breach of ethics on the part of the blogger that reports it, but when a blogger gets info they learned elsewhere, I think it is good manners and ethics to link to where you got it from.

I admit I don't actually read much at any of the bloggers listed unless there is actually a link from another blog I do read, so I wasn't even aware that the guys name had been mentioned until this blew up.

That said, I do think, at least on the issue of media behavior, and media ethics that calling into question whether some of the IMs were to over 18's is an important issue.

The fact that the IMs were to a possible adult at least in one case doesn't make me think any differently regarding Foley's actions, I think they were still wrong and still unethical-it just means they may not have been ethical.

Also, I haven't heard anything about the IMs being a prank, but given the fact that he hasn't spent much time denying them, I am not so sure I am going to put my eggs in that basket. After all, if somebody faked those IMs and put my name on them, and I hadn't written them, I would be telling everyone they were fakes-even if I had sent some of the other stuff.