The Foley scandal was hardly an October surprise. The Republican leadership knew about it so the only surprise may have been when the page he was bothering went public.
It was an October Surprise, because it was a story the media sat on for a year, and pounded nationally about 3 or 4 weeks before the election, alleging things that were untrue about Republicans as a whole, ....
The Foley story became a story when the page decided to go public. Anybody care to guess what WB would have been saying if the media had ran with a story without the page?
As I pointed out in the previous Mark Foley topic in 2006, the congressional page came forward and proved that the allegations Foley had sex with him as a minor
were false. That he and Foley didn't hook up until he was well over 18 (I believe 21, it's in the previous topic).
While conversely, Democrat congressman Gerry Studds was ass-fucking a 17-year-old kid, and living with the under-age kid as well. And the Democrats were completely unapologetic about it, and re-elected Studds repeatedly, untill he
chose to retire at some point.
What a glaring double standard.
