Guys like this make me sick and I’m glad he’s been caught.
A U.S. Senate aide was arrested Friday after allegedly arranging a lunchtime sexual encounter with a teenage boy, according to federal court records. James McHaney, 28, was nabbed by FBI agents after he arranged the afternoon liaison via a “cooperating witness” working with investigators.
Apparently Sen. Cantwell fired him right away. As opposed to covering it up, like Dennis Hastert.
I hate how they use the term teenage boy. 19 is still a teenager. Underage teenage boy would be the better term.
Dang, did I miss it when Mark Foley was arrested? I was so disappointed he wasn’t. I thought he’d done such a great job of staying just within the boundaries of the law, being a disgusting, reprehensible creep but NOT QUITE a criminal. Kind of like the “Barely Legal” video producers, the “Girls Gone Wild” guy (well, he got busted), and Bill Clinton (”depends on your definition of ‘is’” and “depends on your definition of ’sex’”).
Foley was exposed, and good riddance. But, unfortunately, simply being a creepy, disgusting scumbag isn’t enough. If you’re a creepy, disgusting scumbag who very carefully studies the law and stays just barely within the letter of the law, you don’t go to jail.
Unlike this guy, who also was a scheduler for John Kerry’s presidential campaign…
J.
Foley sent sexually explicit instant messages and e-mails to teenage boys over the Internet, and offered them liquor. Federal crime, Jay, one Rep. Foley championed, but you knew that.
To be brutally fair, however, I wouldn’t classify Foley as a pedophile. A teenager who has hit puberty (these guys were 16, 17) is more in the line of desire for a young hunk than a boy. It was more of an abuse of authority — Foley, as a Congressman, was the superior to these boys, pages. Creepy, yes, but without the e-mails and IMs, not illegal.
McHaney, however, went after a 13-year-old, and that’s more of a boy than a man.
And Bill Clinton: For Chrissakes, Jay, you know the “definition of ‘is’” shit it bullshit:
“It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is. If the — if he — if ‘is’ means is and never has been, that is not — that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement. . . . Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true.”
That’s clarifying, not weaseling. (The definition of sex bit was weaseling, however.) But we’re talking about two adults who had a relationship here, and she was no longer an intern when this happened, so the abuse of authority stuff doesn’t apply either.
And you dodge the real issue: Cantwell turned in McHaney right away. Hastert and clowns did nothing to Foley.
OK, sounds good to me, Diamond. Then why wasn’t Foley charged? I’d LOVE to see him behind bars. Maybe he can have the cell Bill Clinton opened up when he commuted Mel Reynolds.
My point still stands: McHaney was fired AFTER he was arrested. Foley was shunned BEFORE he was arrested.
J.
I don’t know why I’m honoring JT douchebaggery with a response, but apparently in the new Republic party, “shunning” someone means “covering up his crimes until ABC News exposed them”. And, “Senate Aide” is equivalent on the totem pole to “Congressman”.
McHaney was fired AFTER he was arrested. Foley was shunned BEFORE he was arrested.
Do you have some evidence that anyone knew about McHaney’s pedophilia BEFORE he was arrested? You know, the sort of evidence we have in spades for Foley and his Republican protectors? If not isn’t your comparison a little bit ….mmm… what’s the word I’m looking for … desperate?
this guy, who also was a scheduler for John Kerry’s presidential campaign…
Yeah? And….?
“I don’t know why I’m honoring JT douchebaggery with a response…”
Just tell him to fuck off and then call him sub-human. At least it’s cathartic.
Ha! Good advice. I think the problem that liberals, oh hell humans have made is that we are too civil to these types, these that sanction torture and the complete abrogation of liberties that the right-wing has foisted on us. Geez, we’re kidnapping people on the street in Canada so they can stand trial now!
The Democrats in Congress have the same problem. One day I wish that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi would get up and call them assholes sometime. Because that’s who you call someone like Jt or Jay, someone who advocates torture and genocide. You don’t debate “people” like that, you call them what they are.
C.S.Stowbridge: “call him sub-human. At least it’s cathartic.”
But not likely to win supporters to your side. At least to of the ilk I presume you’d want no your side.
As a lurker here for several months, and an infrequent commenter, I’m not impressed with most of the arguments made by JT. On occasion he makes a reasonable point. More frequently he makes it badly.
But despite my natural tendency to fall more on the C.S. and Enlightened Liberal side of a discussion, I’m way put off by the name calling that comes from that side. It’s unfortunate that reasoned replies to JT-type straw man arguments are spoiled by a concluding “so there, asshole.”
“At least to of the ilk I presume you’d want no your side” –> “At least not of the ilk I presume you’d want on your side”
Damn spell checker fails me again. Sigh.
I respect what you’re saying Sean, but I disagree. My goal here is not to win supporters, but to entertain myself. The problem with debate is that both sides have to argue good faith arguments. When you compare, as JT did, Mark Foley to Bill Clinton, you are not making a good faith argument and therefore don’t deserve the pretense of civility. When you allow yourself to debate torture, or attacking Iran, you are ceding your own humanity to the other side even by entering the conversation.
As far as lurkers being persuaded of our argument, maybe the fact that some ideas are so repulsive to even merit debate is a signal of our humanity. Look at JT’s droppings on the other thread, with his bigoted arguments. Do they even deserve debate? Or is “Shut up bigot” pretty much what they deserve.
I respect what you’re saying Sean, but I disagree. My goal here is not to win supporters, but to entertain myself. The problem with debate is that both sides have to argue good faith arguments. When you compare, as JT did, Mark Foley to Bill Clinton, you are not making a good faith argument and therefore don’t deserve the pretense of civility. When you allow yourself to debate torture, or attacking Iran, you are ceding your own humanity to the other side even by entering the conversation.
As far as lurkers being persuaded of our argument, maybe the fact that some ideas are so repulsive to even merit debate is a signal of our humanity. Look at JT’s droppings on the other thread, with his bigoted arguments. Do they even deserve debate? Or is “Shut up bigot” pretty much what they deserve.
Enlightened Liberal: “I respect what you’re saying Sean, but I disagree. My goal here is not to win supporters, but to entertain myself. The problem with debate is that both sides have to argue good faith arguments. When you compare, as JT did, Mark Foley to Bill Clinton, you are not making a good faith argument and therefore don’t deserve the pretense of civility.”
Fair enough, I suppose, if your goal is to just have fun.
But I’d disagree that debate requires both sides to behave themselves. It’s when the other side isn’t arguing in good faith that clear, reasoned and civil responses are important. The only alternative is to fall into a “Well they started it” position that doesn’t make anyone look good.
To pick an admittedly extreme example, Ghandi never abandoned the high ground. (Uh, oh. Did I just invoke some corollary to Godwin’s law?)
Enlightened Liberal: “Look at JT’s droppings on the other thread, with his bigoted arguments. Do they even deserve debate?”
Absolutely. When they make supportless arguments and someone calmly replies, “Uh, no, actually. These facts clearly show you’re wrong here, here and here.” not only do you “win” the argument, but (in my experience) they get frustrated by your not playing the name-calling game and (eventually) go away.
You haven’t been here long, have you Sean, lol! You rationally dismiss their arguments with proof (such as the Obama madrassa story) and they bring it up again 2 weeks later. Half of them still believe that Jamil Hussein is a fraud (1-1 odds that one of them will chime in to tell us why). Have you heard of the Not Anywhere Near John Kerry’s Swift Boat Vets? That was three years ago and still they believe it.
These facts clearly show you’re wrong here, here and here.” not only do you “win” the argument, but (in my experience) they get frustrated by your not playing the name-calling game and (eventually) go away.
I’m not sure you’ve been lurking here long enough, then.
I’m not a fan of the name-calling, either, but neither tactic–hostility or reason–ever thwarts the persistence of Oliver’s conservative contingent.
As for Gandhi, and King, for that matter…the important thing about not abdicating the high ground is that the whole world was watching them not abdicate. Here on Oliver’s forum, and in fact in most political debates, the only people watching are the people involved, and nobody’s mind is getting changed in those forums.
(I believe it was Kyle Baker who wrote that the point of nonviolent protest was not to get beaten up for a good cause, but to get beaten up for a good cause in front of cameras.)
You see, a generation ago people like Norman Podhoretz, Paul Weyrich, and Irving Kristol were considered crackpots and rightfully were marginalized. Their publications and influence were limited to the over-65 white male crew who believed that FDR was a Communist and that the darkies should have never gotten rights.
Then, some on our side decided that they should be part of the debate, after all, there are two sides to every story, right? Now they and their disciples are running our country’s policy. There are not two sides to every story. Some things are just repulsive to American ideals and aren’t worth rational discussion, other than to point out their inhumanity.
Not trying to revel in naiveté, but if the good thing about the old days was that crackpots were marginalized (Big “if”. Crackpots who believed “that the darkies should have never gotten rights” were pretty mainstream for most of US history. Joe McCarthy was center stage for a few years. But I digress.) then isn’t getting back to that state of affairs/mind a goal? And hurling insults is hardly going to move things in that direction.
Yeah, I know. It’s just Oliver’s blog and not in front of the cameras. Still…
“But despite my natural tendency to fall more on the C.S. and Enlightened Liberal side of a discussion, I’m way put off by the name calling that comes from that side.”
If you’ve been here as long as we have, you would know why we insult them.
I can’t tell you how many times I’ve done the research, posted the facts, only to have them run away are repeat the same lies again.
I call them sub-human, because they are.
I’ve been here long enough to know why you insult them.
But “sub-human”? No. Seems all to typical human behavior, IMHO.
On both sides.
sigh
“I’ve been here long enough to know why you insult them.”
I’d love to hear your theory on that.
C.S.S.: If you’ve been here as long as we have, you would know why we insult them.
S.D.M.: I’ve been here long enough to know why you insult them.
C.S.S.: I’d love to hear your theory on that.
Heh. There’s something amusing circular about that.
And it initially struck me as vaguely dismissive. First dismiss my comments by suggesting I haven’t been around long enough to understand. And when I note I have been around long enough, challenge me to prove it.
Ah, the downside of typed comments. No vocal inflections, so folks can mis-interpret. And I have been known to read too much into things.
I’ll take it at face value as just a request for clarification.
I know why you insult them because I’ve seen many of their postings. And I’ve seen your (and others’) attempts to post reasoned replies.
I assume you insult them because you’re frustrated. You’ve tried to reply with reasoned facts, they tend to continue to post unreasoned drivel and it’s frustrating. So you take an all too common approach and start calling them names.