Tuesday, October 3: This post is closed to commenting.
Read and discuss Foleygate at this post, Message from a “Values Voter.”
And read this Washington Times editorial:
“On Friday, Mr. Hastert dissembled, to put it charitably, before conceding that he, too, learned about the e-mail messages sometime earlier this year. Late yesterday afternoon, Mr. Hastert insisted that he learned of the most flagrant instant-message exchange from 2003 only last Friday, when it was reported by ABC News. This is irrelevant. The original e-mail messages were warning enough that a predator — and, incredibly, the co-chairman of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children — could be prowling the halls of Congress. The matter wasn’t pursued aggressively. It was barely pursued at all. Moreover, all available evidence suggests that the Republican leadership did not share anything related to this matter with any Democrat.
“Now the scandal must unfold on the front pages of the newspapers and on the television screens, as transcripts of lewd messages emerge and doubts are rightly raised about the forthrightness of the Republican stewards of the 109th Congress. Some Democrats are attempting to make this “a Republican scandal,” and they shouldn’t; Democrats have contributed more than their share of characters in the tawdry history of congressional sexual scandals. Sexual predators come in all shapes, sizes and partisan hues, in institutions within and without government. When predators are found they must be dealt with, forcefully and swiftly. This time the offender is a Republican, and Republicans can’t simply “get ahead” of the scandal by competing to make the most noise in calls for a full investigation. The time for that is long past.
“House Speaker Dennis Hastert must do the only right thing, and resign his speakership at once. Either he was grossly negligent for not taking the red flags fully into account and ordering a swift investigation, for not even remembering the order of events leading up to last week’s revelations — or he deliberately looked the other way in hopes that a brewing scandal would simply blow away. He gave phony answers Friday to the old and ever-relevant questions of what did he know and when did he know it? Mr. Hastert has forfeited the confidence of the public and his party, and he cannot preside over the necessary coming investigation, an investigation that must examine his own inept performance.”
Well, what do you know? The FBI knew about Foley’s e-mails in July.
Update (10/2) @ afternoon: Let’s play the “I did it because I’m an alcoholic” game!
Foley’s MySpace page? (Via Hit and Run). Not really a big deal (I have one, too), because there is nothing on it. I thought I’d link just in case…
Later…Oh, good grief. Foley tried to get one of the kids to meet him.
Drudge is reporting: “House Speaker Dennis Hastert said Monday that no Republican congressional leaders saw lurid Instant Message exchanges from Mark Foley to House pages.” (Source)
Whether or not the leadership saw “lurid” IMs is not quite the point. Members knew about Foley’s “overly friendly” e-mails to 16-year-old boys. From that they could have deduced he was up to no good, in my opinion. They should have investigated Foley’s conduct more thoroughly. That they didn’t know the extent of Foley’s “issues” is BS. I’m sorry, but this CYA stuff is not going to cut it.
A commenter wrote: “The issue is whether Hastert knew or should have known. I’m sorry, but if he covered his eyes and ears in a ‘hear no evil, see no evil’ routine that just doesn’t cut it. And frankly, I think it’s undeniable that at a minimum that’s what he did.”
Not really related: This is what happens when you try to censor bloggers. 
Even later…Michelle Malkin says, “There is a time and place for attacking the Dems and the MSM. Now is not that time. Parents need assurance that their kids are safe on Capitol Hill. If Beltway GOP elites can’t understand this, they are beyond hope.”
Little did I realize this post would be so linkworthy. Regardless, if the GOP suffers for this in November, so be it.
—————————————————————————————————–
This Foleygate story is shifting so quickly, I don’t know where to begin. But I’ll take a stab at it.
Dennis Hastert, Speaker of the House of Representatives, you must resign your leadership position.
Here’s the backstory:
The deviant and reckless conduct of Congressman Mark Foley, who sent inappropriate e-mail and instant messages to teenagers working as pages on Capitol Hill, became public on Thursday. According to a timeline compiled by the liberal blog Think Progress, the scandal actually began 2001 (and likely before that).
Over the weekend, a former page named Matthew Loraditch from the 2001-2002 page class came forward and said a Republican page supervisor warned him and other pages about Foley. That means Foley’s conduct was known by at least one elected official as early as 2001.
Foley was first elected to the House of Representatives in 1994, having served in the Florida legislature. Unbelievably, he was a member of House leadership, serving as Deputy Majority Whip. Ironically, he co-chaired the Congressional Missing and Exploited Children’s Caucus and may be charged with violating laws he helped pass.
In 2003, Foley sent this instant message (PDF) to a minor. In 2005, a former intern e-mailed someone about Foley’s e-mails (PDF). These e-mails were the subject of Thursday’s bombshell.
As the scandal unfolded, we learned that the teenage page’s sponsor, Louisiana Congressman Rodney Alexander, found out about the e-mails in September 2005. His chief of staff called the Speaker’s office. The Speaker’s deputy chief of staff called the House clerk to set up a meeting between the clerk and Alexander’s chief of staff. (Follow that?)
Late last year, after several he said/he said exchanges, Congressman John Shimkus, the Page Board chair, told Foley to stop sending e-mails to underaged pages.
Around February and March of 2006, Alexander told National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) chair Tom Reynolds about the e-mails. According to Reynolds, he told Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert about the e-mails. But according to Hastert’s statement, Hastert doesn’t remember Reynolds telling him about the Foley investigation but doesn’t dispute Reynolds’s account.
Congressman John Boehner, House Majority Leader, found out about Foley’s predilections last spring and told Hastert, who said he’d take care of it. Boehner has since denied telling Hastert anything.
After that, money exchanged hands between Reynolds’s personal political action committee and Foley, and between Foley and the NRCC, chaired by Reynolds.
This mess went public on Thursday, September 28.
I agree with Ed Morrissey (and GOPProgress.com). Hastert should resign (If Trent Lott had to resign over a toast at a private birthday party…come on!) from his leadership position.
Hastert’s actions (or inaction) were a stunning display of failure of leadership. Too little, too late. I don’t believe for one second that he didn’t know what sort of man Foley was or that the matter didn’t require his urgent attention and action. There’s a whole lot of backtracking, revising, and CYA activity going on, and the so-called leaders need to take the fall.
(Some bloggers called for Hastert’s resignation as speaker after this.)
That is, if the GOP is to have any credibility left.
————————————————————————————————————
Bloggers: Blog P.I., Michelle Malkin, GOP Bloggers, Gateway Pundit, Mary Katharine Ham, Sister Toldjah, JustOneMinute…
Although I take issue with some of lefty blogger Glenn Greenwald’s assertions, I agree that Hastert’s letter requesting an investigation “advances the cover-up and worsens the scandal.” Nobody has to talk now, and Hastert didn’t ask the FBI to investigate the House leadership. Hastert writes:
As Speaker of the House, I hereby request that the Department of Justice conduct an investigation of Mr. Foley’s conduct with current and former House pages to determine to what extent any of his actions violated federal law…I also request that the Department undertake an investigation into who had specific knowledge of the content of any sexually explicit communications between Mr. Foley and any former or current House pages and what actions such individuals took.
Flopping Aces: Alterations to original e-mails?
News stories: Clarice Feldman, writing for The American Thinking, traces the intern e-mails to a “black ops” blog.
Two Narratives: the Politics of the Foley Scandal, Ex-page says he saw suggestive e-mails, FBI To Examine Foley’s E-mails, Former Pages Describe Foley as Caring Ally…
{ 23 trackbacks }
{ 53 comments }
La Shawn:
Years ago (before you were born) my good sister in Catholic School told us about a saint who could fly.
We, too, could fly if we prayed long enough and hard enough.
Hastert and his friends no doubt have a Leftist streak – they believe that, if they waited long enough and hard enough, the problem with Foley would just go away.
Foley, thy name is shame.
Hastert, you have woven a tangled web and now we must judge if it’s purpose was to deceive.
A pox on them.
However, this is the silly season of October before the mid-term elections and all the political sap is (saps are) running like squirt from a goose’s rear.
It looks like Hastert has finally played the big old bear one time too many, but I will wait for the drama to unfold before deciding for myself.
Perhaps Foley should take a cue from Barney Frank and fight this thing on the Man-Boy Love angle. If he had been wooing a female page, he could have used the Gerry Studds defense. After all, Studds wooed, bedded and was elected over and over again.
No page nor the family of a page should have to fear their fellows, mentors, or Congressmen. Period.
And allowing Foley to be the fox in the hen house on the exploited children crusade is………………….(words fail me).
LaShawn notes: “I don’t believe for one second that he didn’t know what sort of man Foley was or that the matter didn’t require his urgent attention and action.”
To what extend might Hastert been corrupted by the notion that he must not appear to be “gay-bashing”? I don’t mean that is a good defense, but it is the temper of the times.
Oh, I hear them cry, this is pedophilia!
Oh, I cry in return, if the page(s) were female would you call it pedophilia?
My point is that I smell a distinct hypocrisy in all of this.
I fault Foley on two counts. First, he should keep is lust off under aged teens and to himself. Second, he is gay and has acted in a predatory way.
It is my second point that I challenge the libs on. Why don’t they see this as a man and a boy just seeking to love each other fully and as poster children for gay marriage?
I stand ready for the slings and arrows of being bigoted about predatory gays.
This is typical behavior from the Right. For eight years, the Republicans were exploiting and playing on morality the Democrat’s “backyard” while covering up and hiding what was going on in their own “backyard”. The loudest critic of Clinton’s indiscretion was Newt Gingrich, a man who was unfaithful to his wife while she was in the hospital with cancer. A textbook definition of hypocrisy nad sleaze. Now Republicans are once again exploiting Democrat’s “backyard” again just to compare morality and spin the hypocrisy. Not gonna work!
Hastert should step down for possibly aiding a felon and felony crimes. Demanding an investigationb to prevent a crime is noble and Hastert had every opportunity to do just that. Demanding an investigation to cover your a** and spin a bad situation to prevent it from getting politically worse ranks right up there with spending time with your mistress while your wife is in the hospital with cancer, too little too late hypocrit.
‘Oh, I cry in return, if the page(s) were female would you call it pedophilia?’
Yes! Considering the ages and positions of power of everyone involved, I don’t think any rational person–conservative or liberal, straight or gay–would call this behavior anything other than predatory.
Pedophilia is not a cut and dried term. Some researchers reserve the term for sex with prepubescent children; others draw a line of five years before the legal age of consent.
Pedophiles are predatory, but all predatory lust is not pedophilia.
We all witness the remarkable difference of standards between a teacher and a student. We are tough on male teachers who engage in sex with underage female students. We are tougher on male teachers who engage in sex with underage male students. We get all goofy when a female teacher engages in sex with an underage male. I am unaware of public cases of a female teacher and an underage female student. But we seem to apply different standards depending upon the combinations involved.
If a gay Congressman (who should know better) comes on to a gay page is the result pedophilia? It is a simple question. Those who study the subject do not have a simple answer.
I’m just about to the point I’m not going to vote anymore. Let the chips fall where they may and live with it. You can’t trust either party. They lie to us. They cover up for each other. They line their own pockets. They care more about the illegal aliens in this country than they do their own citizens. I’m totally disgusted.
I don’t believe for one minute that this horrible incident with Foley just accidentally came to the forefront right before election … and I don’t believe for one minute that some Democrats didn’t know Foley was a pedophile. But, that doesn’t excuse the Republicans involved in this mess and they were the responsible party to have taken appropriate action and they didn’t. The corruption is almost beyond comprehension.
The acts of Foley are disgusting. The cover up is sickening beyond reason.
I agree with Heliotrope. This is _not_ pedophilia, it is a homosexual issue. The same is true of the Catholic priest issue – 80% of the relationships were not pedophilia, but man/boy affairs. Is this relevant? I think so – the press uses “pedophilia” when it wants to condemn someone, but uses “homophobia” if it wants to support someone.
This particular problem has a number of different aspects – a)was any law actually broken? did Foley have any actual physical contact with any of these pages? does the fact that he made these advances over the internet make it “illegal” when it wouldn’t be if the contact was made in some other manner? b) if a law was broken, then criminal charges should ensue – but what about the other cases in prior years? why weren’t charges brought then? What responsibility does the political party have for misbehavior by its members? c)there seems to be at least latent homosexuality on the part of the pages – would anyone be upset if the same IMs or emails were passed between two pages? Is the issue here one of age difference only? (Can pages be over 18?)is there some required minimum of years that has to be maintained? If the page is compliant, is harassment involved? what defines harassment? In fact, couldn’t some pages use sex to get preferential treatment? Is there the possibility of blackmail of a sort if a page can entice a congressperson into a compromising situation and then threatening to expose him/her? Who saved these IMs? why?
I wouldn’t be so quick to condemn people out of hand – it may take time to figure out who knew what and when, but then will be the time to make some opinion decisions(since for the most part, our personal decisions will have very little effect on anything else!).
The Dems only care about sexual matters like this when it serves their purpose of bringing down a problem politician (problem here meaning one who is in their way). Other than that, any kind of sex any kind of way is ok with them. I suspect that homosexuality is a big part of this – which makes it a political bombshell that they can explode whenever it suits them.
As for Foley being a founder and co-chair of the Congressional Missing and Exploited Children’s Caucus… 1) a sixteen year old isn’t exactly a child. 2) you find pedophiles in schools, boy scouts etc. They gravitate to where their love object is found, and they use whatever they can to provide cover. This certainly isn’t a first.
Hastert’s incompetence has really been breathtaking, hasn’t it?
He tried to prevent the FBI from investigating that Democratic congressman when the majority of the American public thought he should be investigated.
He did nothing, I repeat, nothing to try to close the borders.
Now this.
If the Republicans lose control of Congress, which I think they will, they’ll really have no one to blame for themselves.
BTW, is Tancredo running in ‘08?
Would you clarify whether you’re calling for resignation from leadership positions or seats?
From the post: “Hastert should resign…from his leadership position.” – Admin
Maybe because there’s so much infidelity going on, it was hard for Hastert and the others to take action–it’s all a fog of dysfunction.
Independent Conservative. The newest designer term to distance one’s self from the negative inference drawn from your obvious association. The latest news cycle has not been kind to the Republican Party. Foley, Woodward, Allen. Whats next?
The fact that the altercations in question were homosexual in nature no doubt makes the situation with Foley more scandalous.
But that speaks poorly of our society, in that we probably wouldn’t be talking so much about this if Foley had been suggestive to 16-year-old girls.
Foley’s actions were reprehensible because of his age and position. Gender and sexuality should be a non-issue here, but of course we all love our scandals, and the fact that Foley was targeting boys instead of girls does make the entire event more “juicy.”
Heliotrope, you are correct in that Foley acted in a predatory way. To whatever extent he committed a crime, he should be punished (and Hastert should be punished to whatever extend he enabled that crime). However, the fact that he was gay just adds to the media scandal. He is a sexual predator, plain and simple. Libs aren’t being hypocritical here. Foley was inappropriate on every level. Conservatives are being hypocritical in that they probably wouldn’t raise such a fuss if Foley had been heterosexual.
The emerging story today is that the “emails” and other “evidence” given to Hastert last year were **most likely not** the super-explicit emails and text messages published at the end of last week. Apparently last year Hastert received a complaint and a copy of a rather innocuous email from Rep. Foley asking a page to send a photo of himself. The page was reportedly “creeped out” by the correspondence, but the email itself was hardly actionable.
It seems that there is still too much uncertainty for us to make any judgements regarding Dennis Hastert’s role in all of this.
If it turns out that Hastert knew about the sexually explicit messages between Foley and teenage boys, then yes he should resign.
If it turns out that Democrat-affiliated groups knew about Foley’s interactions with teen boys but withheld that information in order to score an “October Surprise”, then those groups should be fully investigated and charges should be filed.
If it turns out that Hastert did not know about the explicit nature of Foley’s interactions with teen boys, then he should be left alone. It is pure partisan politics for Democrats (whose supporters routinely complain about living in the Fascist States of AmeriKKKa under George W. Bush) to demand that Hastert resign because he refused to destroy someone’s career without compelling evidence.
#22 Jay notes: “Conservatives are being hypocritical in that they probably wouldn’t raise such a fuss if Foley had been heterosexual.”
Translation: If Foley had been hot for the pants of an underage female, the Republican right would have given him a pass; maybe even sent him a box of candy.
And the evidence and logic behind this charge of hypocrisy is….?
Mike writes:
If it turns out that Hastert did not know about the explicit nature of Foley’s interactions with teen boys, then he should be left alone.
I disagree. The issue is whether Hastert knew or should have known. I’m sorry, but if he covered his eyes and ears in a “hear no evil, see no evil” routine that just doesn’t cut it. And frankly, I think it’s undeniable that a minimum that’s what he did.
Even the relatively (and I mean relatively) innocent emails should have been grounds for suspicion and should have prompted a real investigation. Certainly, when Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington got these emails (to be honest, I’m not sure if these are the exact same ones) they went straight to the FBI. See http://www.nbc4i.com/politics/9971258/detail.html
I agree that Dennis Hastert MUST resign. Subsequent events have proven that Trent Lott was no leader (just a porker snarfing up bridges to nowhere for his constituency when not showing contempt for American citizens in general) and Dennis Hastert has been – in my view – a better leader than Bill Frist but neither is a prize.
And finally, from a purely cynical perspective, it would sure take the wind out of the left’s sails right quick!
Come on, Denny, time to fall on your sword for the Party!
Suek, are you giving him a pass or something?
A 16 year old is a child. Boy or Girl
A child in high school.
There is a reason this man was not sharing this sickness with adult men or even men his age. Because he is a pedophile. These are people that prey after prepubescent and adolescents children. They are aroused by the idea and act of sexual contact with a child whom may be underage(a young teenager) or prepubescent, they are aroused by the fact they are usually able to manipulate those they feel are mentally immature by their age. This man felt very assured that by his authority and by the boys age he could say anything he wanted to him. I read through the transcripts and feel the boy was actually goading him on. And if he was saving the transcripts to get him, then good. When I have people saying some off the wall stuff to me on AIM or I know they are up to no good or liars , I save them too.
Giving him a pass. No, I don’t think so, but in our overly sexually charged society today, I think the picture is very confused. What is the man’s offense? define it, and draw the limitations.
You say a 16 year old is a child. Only in our society today. Pedophilia specifically relates to children under the age of puberty. 16 years old is definitely past the age of puberty, and virtually all 16 year olds are capable of sexual activity. Why do we teach sex ed in high school? Is all sexual activity in that age group unacceptable? Is it the sexual activity or the difference in age that bothers you? If that is true, why?
>>I read through the transcripts and feel the boy was actually goading him on.>>
If this is true, maybe the boy should be the one being charged. What proof does anyone have that either one or the other was actually the person who typed the IM?
pedophilia includes adolescent children.
If you want to get technical a category under pedophile is a hebephile. Which is strictly meant for someone that preys on adolescent children.
I don’t care what society says, society is immoral and it also says 16 year olds are children. Thats why we don’t want them voting, signing contracts, drinking, and having sex and have laws in place regarding such things. But if you think its appropriate for a 54 year old man to be talking about jizzing his pants to a 16 year old boy based on society. What if he was 13, all those female teachers preying after their middle school students have said they were “manly”.
NAMBLA members believe that all children of any age group should be free to express their sexuality with adults. Where does it stop?
And what would the boy be charged with? Egging on a pervert to show he’s a pervert? If I was sixteen I’d probably do the same thing and then show people, and if a friend was over I’d have them probably telling me how to respond and have a good laugh.
And save the IMs. Remember sixteen year olds are immature and they don’t think and act like adults do.
Personally I think the AIMs is why he resigned. That was the most explicit (disgusting even) and damaging. He probably could have explained away the emails. If he was set up I’m sure he would have fought it.
The problem with this reasoning lies in the assumption that this is all there is to Foley. As we’ve seen with priests and other grownups who have sexual relations with boys is that it is a pattern. Every article that I’ve ever read on the subject, tells you that men with this type of prediliction have done it to multiple victims. More will come out.
And can we stop with the pedophilia/not-pedophilia argument. 18 is the age of adult. What he may have done may not fit the statute in the jurisdiction where the incident happened, but he did do it with a CHILD, and not an adult. Whatever your feelings on homosexuality, that page was definitely a child in the context of a 50 year old man.
#30 — I agree. First this entire situation is creepy. Foley’s pursuit of a teen-ager who may or may not be under the age of consent makes my skin crawl. Please note that 16 is the age of consent in DC — ergo sexual activity with a sixteen year old within DC would not be illegal and also note we don’t have actual physical contact in this instance — just creepy electronic sex talk and there remains some issue regarding the location of the teen-ager and that state’s laws regarding age of consent.
However, although the legality or illegality of any actions will be determined by analysis of state laws regarding consent that does not change the creepy/predatory nature of sexually pursuing someone 31 years your junior (or even 28 years your junior — does anyone remember Bill and Monica?)
The overall problem is the sexualizing of our children at earlier and earlier ages. Our children listen to sexually explicit music, watch sexually explicit television and movies, read sexually explicit books, spend hours on the internet with unlimited access to the most sexually explicit information. Our 5 year old girls dress like hookers. Our children are being forced out of childhood and into adult sexual relationships at earlier ages. Relationships that are difficult enough for the emtionally and chronologically mature are being forced onto the emotionally and chronologically immature. Forced onto underage children by a society that critizes any attempts to establish, adopt, or teach morals and standards of behaviour as being part of some right-wing Christian religous zealot agenda. If you try to teach your children abstinence or request that abstinence be taught in their sex education class you are critized as being an unenlightened, backward, neanderthal.
You reap what you sow.
I wonder what percentage of homosexual men had their first homosexual encounter as a teenager with an older man? A survey of the gay men I know puts that percentage somewhere above 90%.
Frank…here’s a link to a really good article on the topic…
http://tinyurl.com/ljpht
>>And can we stop with the pedophilia/not-pedophilia argument>>
No. Read the article I linked to.
There is a significant difference between a prepubescent _child_ and a young person who has entered puberty, which is defined as the age of sexual maturity. We may think youngsters of 13+ are not mature enough to be sexually active (and personally, I cerainly agree with this), but nevertheless, nature has made them physically capable of sexual activity and sexual response.
That doesn’t mean that they cannnot be forcibly molested, but it does mean that not all sexual activity is forced, as it does in a prepubescent chld. That’s not the whole picture, but it’s a part of it and cannot be ignored.
Listen up folks!
I’m a gay man, and have been following all this with interest, especially how all the right wing bloggers have taken this scandal.
Let me say loud and clear that no gay man nor any gay blogger defends Foley’s actions. They are are reprehensible and violate all sorts of sexual harassment laws (that’s why we have them).
So why anyone would say that gay people would think this is ok is beyond me. Why don’t you actually ask us what we think before you start presuming it? Some have even raised NAMBLA, as if that means anything! That organization is reviled by most gay people as well as straight people.
The vast majority of gay men have no interest in sex with underage boys, at least no more than straight men have interest in sex with underage girls. Oh and by the way, Barney Franks affair was with an adult man, not a teenager.
>>Let me say loud and clear that no gay man nor any gay blogger defends Foley’s actions.>>
What actions?
Sending inappropriate emails to people who work with you. This is sexual harassment, by any definition. It doesn’t matter whether Foley actually has sex with them. I used to be a federal employee, and we had extensive training in this issue. Basically, any statements of a sexual nature that make you feel uncomfortable is sexual harassment. One of the pages has stated that he was ‘freaked out’ by Foley’s emails, so the definition is met.
In any case, it’s totally inappropriate behavior in the workplace. It’s inappropriate whether he was writing these to a 16 year old boy or a girl. It’s inappropriate whether he was writing to an adult or not. If these emails or IMs came from a federally owned computer, he could be fired just for that reason alone.
Heliotrope: To what extend might Hastert been corrupted by the notion that he must not appear to be “gay-bashingâ€? I don’t mean that is a good defense, but it is the temper of the times.”"
Considering the fact that Hastert supported the ban on gay marriages, and has not supported any gay right’s initiatives, I would say that he is not afraid of gay-bashing when it suits him.
“Oh, I hear them cry, this is pedophilia!”
Actually, I call it immoral and sexual harassment.
“Oh, I cry in return, if the page(s) were female would you call it pedophilia?”
See above.
“My point is that I smell a distinct hypocrisy in all of this.”
How so? Foley did something wrong, and Hastert covered it up. Both should be punished.
“I fault Foley on two counts. First, he should keep is lust off under aged teens and to himself. Second, he is gay and has acted in a predatory way.”
Total agreement here.
“It is my second point that I challenge the libs on. Why don’t they see this as a man and a boy just seeking to love each other fully and as poster children for gay marriage?”
We don’t. And we don’t see them as poster children for gay marriage. First, for gay marriage, you have to have two people who want to get married. In this instance, Foley just wanted some sex, and so far it appears as though most of these pages rebuffed him. There is no marriage issue here at all.
Now, perhaps in the twisted minds of some conservatives, whenever a man suggests sex with a younger woman, they think that the woman really likes that and would want to marry the older man. But in the real world, we find that sexual predators are rarely the marrying types.
The crime is bad enough but the way the GOP is rushing to cover it up is astounding. Is this what the GOP has become?, the party of Abramoff, Delay and Foley?
Is this the same suek as announced there is nothing wrong with NAMBLA? If so you are a deviant and you need to get help, now. If anyone from law enforcement is reading this, I would suggest checking this pervert out.
Suek, so I started puberty at 9 years old. I was having regularly periods by 11 years old. I had breast, and I was able to get pregnant and carry a child by 12. Would you not consider an adult person seeking to have sex with me a pedophile? Even if I was seemed willing?
amen, amen, and amen! hastert – how can he be slimy and incompetent?? – has to go, asap.
and add this to the “compare&contrast” list: when a gop congressgritter gets caught with his hand in the cookie/nookie jar, he resigns. the party insists on it. and the purer elements of the party then issue (highly proper) calls for their leadership to resign, too. it’s a quaint concept known as “accountability”, mixed in with an old-fashioned notion called “standards”.
had a democrat done all this, can there be any doubt he’d be hunkered down in his office, with both he and his leadership squealing loudly about ’sinister plots against them’, all the while both slandering and threatening the people who’d brought their transgressions to light? no doubt? no doubt at all?
yeah, me neither.
“congressCritter”. darn it.
All of you excusers trying to split pubic hairs about the age of the boys Foley trolled for are pathetic.
Foley helped write an Internet law that makes it a federal crime to talk dirty to a minor while on-line. And that carries a definition of a minor.
Anyone under the age of 18 is a minor in the eyes of the Adam Walsh CHILD PROTECTION law.
No matter what the laws are in your state the cons decided to set their own standard and that standard is 18.
Petards, petards, everywhere I look there’s petards to hoist them on.
From the post, which relied on ABC News:
Over the weekend, a former page named Matthew Loraditch from the 2001-2002 page class came forward and said a Republican page supervisor warned him and other pages about Foley. That means Foley’s conduct was known by at least one elected official as early as 2001.
Don’t fall for the ABC hype! The page alum in question, Matthew Loraditch, has posted this clarification:
…another page, who asked not to be named told The Palm Beach Post, “The program in no official capacity warned us about it,” and he said that Loraditch had posted an explanation for his comments to ABC on the college social network, Facebook.com.
Loraditch’s Facebook.com statement said: “I have received several heated responses from my fellow pages about media involvement in the current situation. I want to respond with a few points and thoughts.
“Firstly, as to the ABC “Warned” story, while I may have inadvertently used the word, “warned,” in communication, I can assure you it was not intended. The fact of the matter is in an informal situation a supervisor mentioned that Foley was a bit odd or flaky and did not connote by tone or otherwise that he should be avoided.
Or, here is what Loraditch told the Times:
Matthew Loraditch, who worked as a page with Ms. Gallo and Mr. McDonald in 2001 and 2002, said a supervisor had once casually mentioned that Mr. Foley “was odd†and that he later saw sexually explicit text messages that Mr. Foley had sent to two former pages after they left the program.
But Mr. Loraditch said he was never warned by program supervisors to stay away from him. “He was friendly,†said Mr. Loraditch, who maintains a Web site for alumni and attends Towson University in Maryland. “He would talk to us more than some other members would.â€
Parts of this story are just ABC promoting their own story; weirdly, the NY Times is pushing back.
>>Is this the same suek as announced there is nothing wrong with NAMBLA?>>
Absolutely not.
foley is slime.
rush seemed to try to throw dust around the issue to make is seem like the Dems ain’t clean either. that may be true, but foley is still slime. i don’t care if he resigned while others like barney frank didn’t.
going into rehab seems to be the new trick to delay the judicial process. ask rush all about that one. not that the charges against rush were legit.
I find post #9 and post #13 morally reprehensible.
Either an individual is over 18, or he/she isn’t.
That’s all that matters.
Either something is illegal, or it isn’t.
The ‘Alcohol’ excuse is really outrageous.
And, it’s a slap in the face to all alcoholics who are struggling valiently with their condition, —those that don’t try to use their alcoholism to cover up crimes and potential molestation.
La Shawn,
I never agree with you about anything. Zero, zip, zilch, nada, honey. But on this we agree 100%. You have managed to raise my opinion of your integrity a thousand fold. Bless you.
Actually, I don’t find it all that surprising that Foley was co-founder and chair of that particular committee. I haven’t been an Evangelical Christian in a long time (25 years or so), but I distinctly remember hearing a sermon in which the pastor referred to a saying he apparently knew well:
“The preacher preaches loudest against his own sins.”
I find post #9 and post #13 morally reprehensible.
Either an individual is over 18, or he/she isn’t.
That’s all that matters.
Either something is illegal, or it isn’t.
I don’t find it morally reprehensible to acknowledge that there are clinical definitions of pedophilia that exclude post-pubescent adolescents (to the best of my knowledge that’s true), but given Foley’s internet behavior and the fact that the law he crafted makes such behavior a federal crime unless both parties are at least 18 years old, I think the question of whether it’s truly “pedophilia” or not is beside the point.
Frankly, I also think that given the fact that this is a Congressman conversing with a kind of Congressional intern, even if the page was older than 18 I would still find the conduct reprehensible, and something the House Ethics Committee would need to investigate.
If you’re going to (rightly) censure Barney Frank for his bad behavior, this certainly merits the same treatment at the very least.
If, as appears to be so, the House Republican Leadership tried to hide it all, the people who did so need to resign.
FWIW, I also am gay.
“Either an individual is over 18, or he/she isn’t.
That’s all that matters.
Either something is illegal, or it isn’t.”
I agree 100%, and I don’t see how the comparisons with sleazy but legal sexual behavior (Clinton) help.
But state/DC laws do vary. Still, I thought everyone online knows that before you trade XXX pics or XXX conversations about sex, at least ask if the person is 18. One could still be talking to a 15 year old, but at least ask.
Also, it’s not how clear the authority position was, but it may also be sexual harassment.
While it’s not a rape, the past college coaches who were allegedly fired for failing to report /discouraging reporting a date rape seem to be in similar positions to some Republican leaders.
What’s so funny (at least from this gay liberal’s chair) is that the Republican party has built it’s platform on demonizing gay people and pandering to the anti-gay base. So now when it is discovered that they had not only a gay man in congress, but a sexual predator as well, you would have thought that the Republican leadership would have been the first to jump on this, expose and lance the boil, so to speak.
But they did nothing of the sort. What should that tell you? First, it should tell you that all this anti-gay rhetoric that the party has been feeding y’all these past few years is just talk. They don’t really mean it. They are playing you for fools, just to get your vote.
Don’t believe me? Well, the most anti-gay senator in the Senate is without a doubt Rick Santorum. He has denouced homosexuality as corrupt, immoral, a disgrace upon the society, and so on. And yet, he has an openly gay communications director.
And this is how it is in congress. I live and work on Capitol Hill, and I can tell you that no place in Washington is more cruisy than the halls of congress. when I first came here, I heard stories that half the congressional staffers are gay, and you dismiss those as exaggerations. But it’s true! Or it seems it – so many people are gay, whether openly, in the closet or simply in denial. How do I know? I’m a manager with the local gay and lesbian filmfest that we hold her annually, and I see a lot of the same faces. Plus I go to the gay bars and see them there as well.
So you have been duped. You thought that the Republicans were taking principled stands for the family and so on (For the record, I think you can be pro-gay and pro-family, certainly) when in fact they were just using you. And here’s the proof — when push comes to shove, retaining power is more important than any rhetoric, no matter how much it gets out the vote.
Of course, I get a little bit of sheudenfreude, or what ever that German word is. In my opinion, the Repubs started a reprehensible campaign against gays and lesbians, so I’m quite happy that this has come to bite them in the butt. But, of course, I’m not too happy with our Democratic side either, so I shouldn’t get too giddy.
The Washington Times is calling on Hastert to resign, so you know this is bad. But at the very least, the Repubs are going to have a VERY difficult time bashing gays and trumpeting their moral superiority over liberals. And that’s a good thing.
I disagree that Hastert and party are in any way to blame. You simply don’t go around accusing people of attempted child solicitation without more proof. The emails alone just don’t cut it.
Now I wonder about those that held onto the IMs. After all, we’re being told that somebody has been “shopping” these IMs to reporters for a while now. I’ve heard “months” being tossed around. (From the Foley campaign, I believe.) This person/these people should have federal charges brought against then for failing to report child abuse. I recall how the blogosphere spit upon that Watergate guy, who reported the fiasco to a reporter instead of the police or a justice authority. I see parallels between these two.
Frankly, I can’t figure out how this information would have been collected by a group to release it. How many sources are producing/releasing these IMs? I’d like to learn more about the big picture.
“I disagree that Hastert and party are in any way to blame. You simply don’t go around accusing people of attempted child solicitation without more proof. The emails alone just don’t cut it.”
==============
I am a Liberal Democrat (and proud of it) and I agree with you Nikki – the “over-friendly” emails are not enough alone. But I think the proof will be in what the GOP didn’t do.
Did they even they ask him if he had been emailing other pages?
Did they ask for permission from Foley to check the Congressional servers for who he may have been sending unsolicited emails to? Not the content of the messages, but the headers. Even if he refused you wouldn’t force him, but did anyone ask if he would volunteer to let them?
Did anyone call in some of the pages and ask them confidentially if ANYONE on the Hill paid undue attention to them? If there was any buzz about any particular person?
If you tell predator to stop, of course they don’t. If you ignore the warning signs and hope that nothing happens then congratulations – you’re an enabler.
My Grandfather, a good but simple man, always used to opine, when the talk turned to politics, “They’re all a bunch of crooks.”, and history has yet to prove him wrong.
“Frankly, I can’t figure out how this information would have been collected by a group to release it. ”
If you get weird instant messages, you just copy and paste it into a document and save – just as I cut and pasted your comment, and added quotes around it.
Since some of the victims reported the messages to others, it would be relatively easy for a reporter to ask around and find the boys.
I think it was a reporter, news source that broke the story and not a “group†out to get him as you suggest.
“I disagree that Hastert and party are in any way to blame. You simply don’t go around accusing people of attempted child solicitation without more proof. The emails alone just don’t cut it.”
I’m a Liberal Democrat (and proud of it) and I agree with you Nikki. The “overly friendly” emails, as they are being called, are not enough proof. But I think the rub is what did the GOP do or, more importantly, not do?
So far the only thing they acknowledge doing is telling him – “Leave that boy alone.” I think if they had taken any other steps they would have mentioned them by now.
Did anyone even ask him if he had been in contact with other pages? Did anyone ask any of current or ex-pages confidentially if ANYONE on the Hill made them uncomfortable (as in sick, sick, sick)? Did they even give Foley the impression that they were seriously worried about how his behavior might look with the elections not far off? Did they do anything besides tell him – “Stop that!”
If you tell a predator to stop, of coures, they won’t. If you ignore warning signs and just hope that nothing happens, then congratulations – you’re an enabler.
That’s what really scares the GOP leadership right now – as the story unfolds will the people on the street see them as innocent, negligent, complict or will they be seen as aiding and abetting.
As the experts say – People may not understand the Abramoff money trail, but they understand a sex scandal. And a gay pedophile sex scandal might have them saying – to hell with them all.
And we haven’t even got around to discussing how this will affect them with their base. A lot of sensible, decent GOP’ers might stay home in November just out of disgust.
I am satisfied if Foley resigns and is castrated as punishment. It kinda does make one want to start over as a libertarian. Clean party slate. That Coburn and Tancredo do seem to be ok, hard to tell these days those with Foley like surprised. They should have dumped him earlier. That Karr guy from the Jon Benet murder would be a better candidate then Foley.
#64. “I am satisfied if Foley resigns and is castrated as punishment.”
Simply awesome.
#63. “You simply don’t go around accusing people of attempted child solicitation without more proof.”
Welcome to the blogistan.
Zakia – Suek, are you giving him a pass or something?
A 16 year old is a child. Boy or Girl
A child in high school.
Derrick – And can we stop with the pedophilia/not-pedophilia argument. 18 is the age of adult. What he may have done may not fit the statute in the jurisdiction where the incident happened, but he did do it with a CHILD..
When I was a high school junior and senior –several of those 16 year-old, eager, willing, sexually mature female “children” did amazing things to this here “kid”!! With verve, positions I’d never seen before, and stamina!
The point is that society has decided, quite reasonably, that large age disparities and the lure of good-looking adolescents don’t go together – it’s harmful as courts and psychologists have stated to a young person’s development, can leave lasting damage, it’s against just about all parental wishes who are legal guardians – so we create legal and organizational boundaries. And make even tougher and more punitive laws and boundaries for authority figures attracted to jailbait, since they have undue influence and can pressure susceptible minors.
But don’t infantilize adolescents. They are not “children”….
Most 16-year olds have had sexual encounters, serious “necking” at least – if not oral or intercourse, and it is normal and healthy for most well-balanced teens as long as the relationship is not inappropriate, and as long as it is not overly promiscuous and/or casual and the teens involved and others are not placing a low status on them for doing so..
But we all agree that pederasty, a 52-year old chasing a 16-year old’s tail, or just about any sexual relationship with someone in the early teens or younger is wrong at a minimum, illegal in most circumstances..
Glamchild – Either an individual is over 18, or he/she isn’t.
That’s all that matters.
Either something is illegal, or it isn’t.
You are the one who needs to look up consent and statutory rape laws. And why most states say there is nothing illegal about a sexual relationship between 15, 16,17,18 year olds in high school. If it was a major crime, even a minor one, half the American population who are in or who have been through HS are sex offenders.
Randy – The vast majority of gay men have no interest in sex with underage boys, at least no more than straight men have interest in sex with underage girls.
Sorry Randy, I read that and thought it was a reprise of “The vast Majority of Muslims are peaceful and moderate and know that Jihad merely refers to the tranquil inner struggle of spiritual attainment..Islam is no more violent than Christianity.”
Gays ARE different than straights in the long, time-honored practice of pederasty – man-boy love – which is a strong homosexual preference expressed across a wide range of cultures ancient and modern. In some societies, this gay preference for smooth young boys was pervasive and accepted (Greece, 18th century China, various Muslim Caliphates). And the interest is clear in our society, where stats show a homosexual is 5-7 times more likely to engage in underage sex than straights, and with 7X the number of average victims than a hetero man pursuing underaged girls – according to DOJ study released after the Catholic Priest scandal. The phrase “chickenhawk” refers to the numerous gays that chase their little chickens…it is actually an old European term on this fairly widespread gay predeliction. Gays need to be open and acknowledge it is a significant problem among gay older men. And in gay propaganda, notorious pederasts like Oscar Wilde are treated as victims of “Victorian intolerance” – something now even showing up in US school textbooks as “Oscar the brilliant, laid low by hate” theme. There is a definite push by the Gay Lobby to make pederasty more acceptable. [It is important to distinguish. Pedophile is gay or straight attraction to prepubescents 12 or under, legally. Pederasty refers to gay men significantly older than their targets – boys 12-19, and differs from straight men chasing jailbait in several behaviors and conventions unless the chickenhawk is just seeking quick gratification from a boy prostitute..
Chris Ford, I find your comments interesting, could you please cite your sources for thew figures you have regarding gay men?
Regards,
JohnD
Comments on this entry are closed.