You can say what you want about Michelle Malkin (and many of you never miss a chance to bash her- often, myself included), but she nails it in this post regarding the ‘outing’ of the page who had the IM conversations with Foley:
For the past two days, a conservative blogger has ginned up publicity for his work outing a 21-year-old young man–a former congressional page and current deputy campaign manager for a heartland Republican congressman–who received sexually explicit instant messages from disgraced Florida GOP Rep. Mark Foley when he was 17 and 18 years old. I have received several e-mails from the blogger and readers flogging the post.
I refused to link to the blogger then and even though the Drudge Report has plastered screaming headlines about the blogger’s scoop, I refuse to link to it now. There was absolutely no good reason to expose the former congressional page’s name and identity. Seizing on ABC News’ redaction failure and reporting errors (more on that in a moment) to play gotcha in a feeble attempt to avenge Foley is not a sufficient reason to obliterate the young man’s privacy. The young man was the prey, not the predator.***
The right thing for the conservative outing mob to have done would have been to halt the gotcha locomotive and make a good-faith effort to ask the young man if he was Brian Ross’s primary source or “accuser.” But nobody gave him a chance to verify that before his name was dragged out into the open.
Michelle is exactly right, and those pushing his name should be ashamed of themselves (especially the creepy cyberstalker who made it his job to track the kid down). Sadly, PJ Media (of which I am a member) and the Instapundit seem to have been major forces (although most of it was Drudge) in helping to make sure this kid’s identity was blown wide open. That isa shame, and they should be embarassed. Someone posted a link to the website in the comments section here, and I immediately deleted it when I saw it. That is the right thing to do, and who this kid is is none of our damned business. He has ben through enough- let him live his life and stay out of his damned business.
Foley, Hastert, the do-nothing leadership- they are all fair game. Leave this kid alone.
Oh please. I’ve got $5 that says she wouldn’t be playing the stalwart bastion of moralitude if she’d received the leak first. Like she’s ever had any moral qualms about releasing the identity of her opposition.
Shorter Malkin: “I disapprove of the pot being black.”
I did post a link to the website talking about the leak, but even that website didn’t link to the actual website hosting the information, although it did mention the name of the blogger who originally leaked the name. If that was going too far, I’m sorry. My bad.
Thanks for deleting that link, John. It was the right call.
It’s nice to see Malkin *not* exposing someone’s personal information for once–but let’s be clear, I doubt she’s actually taking a real moral stand here. I’d bet that she’d do it in a heartbeat if he was a liberal and/or she had a beef with him.
Can we lay off attacking Malkin when she does something right? Pretty please?
It’s just… it’s just that praising Malkin for being outspoken about the outing of the Foley victim is like praising Newt Gingrich for restraining his gay bashing or praising Rush Limbaugh for suggesting we pull our troops out of Bagdad.
After you’ve sinned half a dozen times over, condemning the sin at your next opportunity doesn’t earn you a halo.
I kinda felt the way John does re: Michele until I read Pb’s and Zifnab’s posts. And then I remembered how she outed those students. It’s the same premise–the info was readily available on the Internet for anyone to find. The only difference is between the two is one outing was of liberals, the other, a conservative.
That was the right thing to do. I earlier saw a couple of the “conservative” blogs, with the kid’s info, MySpace page and all that. Yeah, they’re the true moral defenders of God and country.
Good to see even Michelle knows that blaming it on the loliters (male lolitas?) isn’t going to fly. She must have missed her 3,000 rant appointment at Jiffy Lobes.
With all due respect no.
Let’s say this said “a former congressional page and current deputy campaign manager for a California Democratic congressman” would she be so kind? Let’s say the guy was a Muslim name Habib you think she’s be scolding her Drudge buddy?
Malkin’s sense of decency and outrage is tempered by her bigotries and that is something I don’t think anyone should forget.
I’ll readily admit that Malkin is doing the right thing here (which is also what any sane person should have done), especially when compared to Drudge, InstaPundit, and Pajamas Media. However, that’s not saying much, and I’m not about to give her any more credit than she deserves for this, given her past actions.
I’ll just say that Malkin looks great in a bikini.
I’d be willing to give Malkin more credit, were the circumstances different.
The thing is, that the goal of the person who did the outing was obviously to find a way to discredit the accusation, or blame the democrats. For instance, had it turned out that the kid in question was a stalwart Democrat who had taken time off from college to work on Ned Lamonts campaign (rather than a stalwart Republican who has taken time off to work on the campaign of a prominent Republican who shall remain nameless) would Malkin have been quite so sanguine? I doubt it. She’d likely be screaming “Democratic Party set-up” along with the lions share of the wing-nuts blogosphere.
The “outing” of this kid was entirely pointless — the blogger in question tried to claim that ABC lied when it said that Foley sent salacious IMs to former pages under 18…. all he managed to prove was that Foley didn’t stop his internet sex chats with former pages as of their 18th birthday.
One might have given the blogger a little bit of credit for “integrity” insofar as he published stuff that contradicted what he was looking for — were it not for the fact that during his “radio” show last night, he allowed a caller on who claimed to have known the former page, and then allowed the caller to say that the former page was a “limp wrist” type. (This, despite the fact that on at least one of the former page’s cached websites, he lists his orientation as “straight”.)
a broken clock, despite being right twice a day, is still broken. however, in this case, i will say she’s totally doing the right thing.
i can only hope this means she’s turned over a new leaf and will not aid in the revealing of people’s personal info in the future, as she has done in the past. we’ll have to wait and see on that.
I doubt she would have been so protective of a former page working for John Murtha or Hillary.
But, she is right.
Despite being right in “Fahrenheit 9/11”, Michael Moore is still fat.
Despite being right about the outing of the young man in question, Michelle Malkin is still a shithead.
I applaud Michelle for doing what’s right here but it could only be tepid applause at best given previous actions on her part.
As for the original leaker of this young man’s identity it’s obvious he was some no-named pissant who wanted to be one of the “kool-kids” and willing to further debase the debate with this act worthy of the paparazzi.
I applaud Michelle for her stand on this issue but agree with others here that, were it a democrat, she would call for his or her crucifixion or gitmoization immediately.
Its been bad enough for me that I had to admit Cole has been right on all week, now you want me to say something nice about Malkin? Fuck, I’d rather be banned again.
Gold Star for Robot Boy
Bigger issue, John: How will you inform Pajamas of your shame and embarrassment (by association) by its actions? And what will you demand of PJ to correct its errors?
Drudge as of 2:45 Eastern Time, has this up with one of his flashing lights: “According to two people close to former congressional page [name deleted by me], the now famous lurid AOL Instant Message exchanges that led to the resignation of Mark Foley were part of an online prank that by mistake got into the hands of enemy political operatives, the DRUDGE REPORT can reveal… Developing…”
She did make the right call on this. I hope we’ll see further such statements of decency and kindness from her.
And John, we’re trying to be fair, man. But it would be like Darth Vader rescuing a kitten from a tree. It’s fantastic, and deserves praise, and you hope it’s indicative of a change of heart, but you really know better.
Shorter Mr. Cole–can we PLEASE say nice things about Charles Manson, since he just washed his hands after using the bathroom?
Wow. Punchy takes it to a new low…comparing Malkin to Charles Manson. And some of the posters on this site wonder why most Americans don’t feel comfortable around the loony left.
The way this obscure right-wing blogger figured out the name is that ABC News, when they published the IMs, accidentally failed to redact the page’s screen name in one spot (they redacted it everywhere else).
The blogger then did several hours of online research, which he documented in excruciating detail, to figure out the identity of the guy behind that screen name. He then published the name, several pictures, and other pieces of identifying information – and even issued a press release to advertise that he was going to do so.
The right-wing blogosphere has reacted to this in three ways:
1) Malkin, and I’m assuming others as well, did the right thing by condemning this outing and refusing to link to the right-wing blog in question.
2) Drudge, Instapundit and Pajamas Media happily linked to the guy, thus giving a completely obscure right-wing blog thousands more hits than it otherwise would have received, and advertising the outing to a far wider audience.
3) Going even further, the most rabid right-wing talking point I’ve seen is that ABC NEWS destroyed this poor man’s privacy. That’s right, it was ABC News – which accidentally let the screen name slip – not the right-wing blogger who spent hours tracking down the guy’s identity, and not the prominent right-wing bloggers who gleefully linked to his findings! Words cannot express my reaction.
Hypocritical bitch. Apparently there WAS a good reason to print the names, addresses, and phone numbers of those guys at UC Santa Cruz.
What does it say about Roger Simon and Glenn Reynolds when they manage to make Malkin look like a decent individual?
i say this as someone with views closer to yours than to most of the other people on this site, but did you read what the Drudge thing said?
It says that the pages were joking and may have goaded Foley into saying some of the things he did, but it doesn’t say Foley was joking or had any idea of the “gag”.
If a 16 yr old girl sends me an IM in which she jokingly says she wants me to bang her, but I don’t know she’s joking and respond by telling I’d be more than happy to, I’m not absolved of anything.
And, it should also be added that a lot of those Drudge Siren Everyone Stop The Presses Alerts often disappear a little later and are never heard from again.
Look, I’m a registered Republican (although I haven’t been voting that way as much lately), but people in our party need to stop looking for some silver lining where this isn’t as bad as it seems. It is.
Is it because they like to bugger little boys? Oh, wait, I’m sorry, that’s your party.
I already said that Malkin had a good point. All the other front page posts were suitable for wrapping fish however.
I celebrate Malkin being correct this time. I hope she manages it again someday. Honestly.
Wait for it… what could possibly be “a new low” for Par Rot?
You didn’t pay special attention to that last paragraph quoted I think: “…ask the young man if he was Brian Ross’s primary source or “accuser.” But nobody gave him a chance to verify that before his name was dragged out into the open.” This implies to me that if he had been the source or an “accusor” Malkin would have no problem with people tracking him down spreading his name all over.
The only reason to out these people is retribution. Do you think any of the people involved in bringing this to light deserve retribution for that? That doesn’t sound “exactly right” to me.
That reminds me a bit of I Saw What You Did:
I’m not sure how much praise Malkin deserves merely for refusing the disseminate the name of a young man who was, as she says, the prey, not the predator. This seems to be simple decency and common sense. But since she shows so little of either the majority of the time, a nod and a polite golf-clap is in order. Though I would’ve been more impressed had she named names and called out Reynolds and Simon for publicizing the young man’s identity.
This may be an impertinent question–actually, I’m sure it is–by why the hell would you want to be associated with Pajamas Media? OK, money, everybody likes money. But for me to have my good name associated with those folks…it’d have to be A LOT of money.
In other news, those guys from Dateline aren’t actually 13-year old girls. So I guess Drudge wants us to believe the creeps they catch didn’t actually do anything wrong.
And if this was the only page Foley had messaged inappropriately, it might add some context… but it obviously wasn’t.
Watching this right-wing feeding frenzy descend upon the victims of Foley’s predatory conduct is just sickening.
You’re right, John, in that Malkin deserves some praise for acting correctly.
I hope that the mess this whole matter reveals, will cause a lot of conservatives to realize that the current GOP is not worth their defending.
I think that Hastert, Fordham, Reynolds and others’ actions in allowing Foley continued unrestricted access to pages, will show anyone that the current GOP doesn’t give a damn about anything but power.
I think it only makes it even more apparent – in ways that the ballooning deficit, out-of-control budget, misuse and mistreatment of the military, and outrageous increasing of Federal power have already made clear – that the GOP has been playing conservatives for suckers.
And I pray that, at long last, the current GOP has been responsible for something so blatantly beyond the pale, that conservatives will stop making excuses for them.
reading between the lines: the page was not really “a little” horney but that he was playing along with Foley’s seduction. They do not say the IM’s were fabricated but that the 53 year old Congressman was “goaded” into saying these things to the page. I don’t see how it changes one thing about Foley. As a matter of fact it may even show Foley to be such an object of humor and derision among the pages that they were playing along with this sick motherfucker for entertainment value. Yeah, thats really going to help the GOP. Get that siren going Drudge.
This just in — Charles Manson is demanding an apology from Punchy. Film at eleven…
You mean right like this?
The final word on the Uniformed Secret Service
Gee, Paul, does that mean the Moore is no longer fat?
How long did it take you to dig that up? Obsess much?
Let’s be realistic for a moment. The former page works for a Republican politician and presumably wants a career in Republican politics. And now, thanks to Drudge and Instapundit, the whole world knows he was part of a gay sex chat.
Whether the chat was a “hoax” or completely serious, it’s obvious that he has a strong interest in getting the word out that hey, I’m not gay, and this isn’t what it appears to be.
The guy has suffered enough, and if he’s just making up the “hoax” story to salvage his career, I have zero interest in debunking the story. He shouldn’t have been put in this position in the first place. But we should at least acknowledge the reality that even if he says it was a big joke, that doesn’t necessarily make it so.
2 Minutes. Don’t you just hate it when someone points out what a hack Moore is.
What’s funny is that the whole point of the line “Michael Moore is fat” is to make fun of conservatives for being obsessed with the guy. And Paul just jumps right in! No wonder DougJ gave up spoofing, you just can’t top the real thing.
And you pointed out the reason. He was right — “for some reason”, the Secret Service showed up and asked what they were doing. He didn’t supply the reason, big deal. He didn’t say “for no reason”.
Don’t you just hate wasting your time?
If the hoax story is true, I am sure the page will longer be referred to as a victim and become a target for the left.
Now awaiting the claims that this was all a plot by Karl Rove to get rid of a gay Republican and embarrass the Democrats/media.
He was disingenuously implying a tie between the Saudis and the Bush Administration. In other words, being a hack.
And Hastert will claim he’s known this was a hoax since 1995, but he’s been covering for the Democrats who were covering for the hoaxters because he didn’t want to be accused of gay-bashing by George Soros, even though this happened because Bill Clinton got a blowjob from a 19-year-old Monica Lewinsky when she was 22 years old, and besides GERRY STUDDS! GERRY STUDDS! BARNEY FRANK! BARNEY FRANK! GERRY STUDDS!!!!!!
Sick. You have absolutely no problem with this guy being outed by the right, do you?
I’m laughing too hard — anyone else what to take a whack at this one?
“want”, not “what”.
jan van flac
as bad as sex scandal is (and no, it’s not a hoax or a prank), it’s nothing compared to what’s going on in Iraq these days, or the fact that Condi Rice
ignored 9/11 warnings.
it’s looking pretty grim for the republicans these days.
Ties between the Saudis and the Bush Administration? Say it ain’t so!
October 5th, 2006 at 2:45 pm
Those guys have really gotten crazy.
Incidentally, The Secret Service is theoretically in charge of going after all sorts of random stuff, including credit card fraud and computer crime.
Speaking of Condi Rice, at least we know of one person in washington we’ll never hear mentioned in a sex scandal!
After defending a man, who seems to enjoy talking to underage boys a bit too much, it’s maybe time for Pajamas Media to change their name once again. Cause now, I’m starting wonder who they are chatting to in their basements, in front of their computers, wearing only their pajamas….
Present bloggers excluded. Obviously.
Wait a minute, now, the supermarket tabloids were saying that Laura Bush was going to ask for a divorce because Gerogie-boy was fooling around with Condi! Never say never!
Or–if you saw SNL last Saturday–Clinton and Condi?
Hahaha! That reminds me of an original Saturday Night Live skit (with Dan Ackroyd and Buck Henry) portraying Nixon as joking with his subordinate for the White House taping system. They took well known quotes from the notorious tapes and acted them out as if they were joking.
Well, you had to be there. If I can find it on youtube I’ll post a link. Really funny stuff. Maybe Drudge saw that skit recently.
What do you mean ‘gotten’?
Incidentally, to note the way they misuse/abuse just one word–‘dhimmi‘:
And then… quisling:
See? They don’t spend their time coming up with new arguments in good faith, but rather they spend it coming up with new smears accusing others of bad faith. When ‘seditionist’ or ‘traitor’ or ‘appeaser’ gets old, they just find another word to corrupt and stick it into the mix.
Wow, Angryflower, thanks for the link. For those that didn’t go there, this commenter is saying this because YouTube decided not to post a video submitted by Michelle Malkin.
As they say, I’m outaged by the outrage! Wipe the foam, dude, and start again.
You’d be wrong again, Paul. You really don’t get it do you?
I’ve been wondering where Darrell was in all this, and then realized that since the Republicans can’t get their storry straight, he has nothing to say yet.
Thank heaven for small favors.
What do you mean ‘gotten’?
The cognitive dissonance caused by the Republican failures over the years has made them more insane, and judging by the comment that was linked upthread, more dangerous.
If not Pajamas Media, why not join Pantload Media?
She’s also correct about how ridiculous the media’s fixation with missing white girls is. And that’s the second of the requisite two times a broken clock is right.
But given her track record, I think it’s safe to say she’s doing the right thing more out of a desire to defend Republicans than out of any sort of altruism. I guess we should take wingnuts being correct whenever and wherever we can, but let’s not kid ourselves about Malkin’s newfound “conscience” here.
The Other Steve
I don’t understand all the whining by wingnuts about Michael Moore. I mean the things he’s being accused of stretching in Farhenheit 9/11 are no worse than what wingnuts do daily.
But John, weren’t you just telling us the other day what a nice guy Glenn Reynolds is?
And, why exactly are you still a member of Pajamas Media? Why do you continue to lend your aura of respectability to “nice guys” like Glenn, Roger Simon and Chucky?
I like your commentary, but the company you keep is disgusting.
The Other Steve
John Cole: Are you going to be delinking instapundit and Pajamas Media for breaking the Online Integrity Pledge?
The Other Steve
It’s interesting how a site that calls itself anti-idiotarian seems to be largely populated by idiotarians.
Watching the Republican meltdown is hilariolus Mark Levin is particulary looney. Your goose is cooked. Next thing you know they;ll re digging up Vince Foster. LMAO!
This isn’t going to help, but as a reporter myself, my first thought on reading the ** **** ******* (so Mr. Cole doesn’t delete the whole comment) site was to think, dang, solid digging.
Now as to whether it does any good or damage, well that is really the point. If it was a newspaper, unlikely to run the story unless the guy really wanted to start talking. A blog? It was something he could do from home, so he did. Not investigative work but, good digging.
My Truth Hurts
So John, when are you going to disassociate yourself from Pajamas Media?
as a reporter myself? i cant stand up from laughing…..get a life
These are the hardest 3 words I’ve ever had to type..
Malkin was right!
gag gag pfsshht cough
Outing these boys, I don’t care HOW old they are now is morally equivilent to posting rape victims names and photos
JoeTx, but think of all the times you can type:
Malkin was wrong.
Malkin was wrong.
Malkin was wrong.
Malkin was wrong.
Malkin was wrong.
From The Whisky Bar:
Online Integrity, my ass — still a fucking farce, and they’re still on the link list.
I guess I’m out of step – I think Malkin speaks and writes in good faith from sincerely held beliefs.
She may be wrong, in some cases perhaps tragically wrong, but she does work to support her claims and points of view, and offers evidence as she sees it.
In looking over this thread, I have not seen any support for the idea that she is personally horrible, harmful, and generally mistaken – just the unsupported assertions, mixed in with the occasional ad hominem (always a sign of classy disputation).
I did see a mention of her ‘outing’ some people’s private information – without any note that, as I understand it, this was information that had been published in a press release, as well as being posted on web sites that were more in tune with the views of the people involved.
She is well known, energetic, intelligent, and speaks to a significant audience. I think she is open to reasoned argument – it would seem more fruitful to engage her than to reflexively attack her.
People without the ability to present reasoned and supported points of view could not do this, though. After a while, even the noisiest echo chamber ends up sounding hollow and empty.
Parker, we’re talking about Michelle Malkin here. I’m not sure who you’re talking about, but it must be someone else.
I think you are demonstrating one of the points I’m making – to clarify, yes, I am talking about Michelle Malkin.
But, thank you for serving as an example!