News Did Foley's Resignation Reveal Hypocrisy in Congress?

[Ivan Seeking]

In particular, one cannot use this case as evidence that Republicans are, somehow, more morally flawed than others. In order to show that, one should look elsewhere.

You are missing the hypocrisy that catches up to the Republicans here. The Republicans portray themselves as morally superior to the Democrats –they call themselves the “family values” party. On top of that, gay Republicans have only recently started coming out and not many are known as yet. You may remember that it was a huge deal when Cheney’s daughter announced her sexual preference. So Foley hits on two fronts: First, by contacting teens as he did and all that goes along with that. Next, the fact that he is gay and that people knew this, is no doubt a huge shock to some people. Recall that the core of the Republican right [which is really the extreme right] are anti-gay by definition - they are fundamentalist Christians. As a result, gay [out or not] Republicans now fear a backlash [one even feared a McCarthy-like witch hunt] from this scandal. But in fact what seems to be happening is that the evangelicals are jumping ship. And this is very good because this unholy alliance is what has allowed the Republicans to take over and make such a mess of things.

IIRC, the extreme right has turned out for the Republicans in numbers close to 90%, or even more at times.

 

[arildno]

Well, it shows that they are at least as bad as the Democrats and any other politicians, but I don't see an inflated self-image primarily as a moral flaw, rather, it shows stupidity.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Next, the fact that he is gay and that people knew this, is no doubt a huge shock to some people

The canard pedophile=gay has been used to smear gays since forever. There is no necessary connection, any more than there is between heterosexuality and raping little girls.

Positive minded people want to be careful in their usage of these concepts.

 

[arildno]

Well, Foley MIGHT be gay, but too wrapped up in internal miseries that he don't dare to develop any meaningful, egalitarian relationship to some man of his own age group, but prefers to romanticize a relationship in which he is dominant and the other is an adoring/submissive fan or aide, because that's simpler for him to deal with.

If he had been more open about this, he might have developed a more mature sexuality.
But that's my opinion, anyway.

 

[Skyhunter]

The canard pedophile=gay has been used to smear gays since forever. There is no necessary connection, any more than there is between heterosexuality and raping little girls.

Positive minded people want to be careful in their usage of these concepts.

According to the peer reviewed http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/reprint/94/1/41, 98% of molested males and 99.6% of molested girls are victims of HETEROsexuals, NOT Homosexuals.

To use such a canard is either deliberate misrepresentation (lying), or ignorance. Take your pick, I see a lot of both coming from the right-wing noise machine.

Then of course you have Michael Savages angle, blame the victim.

On the October 2 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, Michael Savage responded to allegations that former Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) sent sexually explicit messages to former congressional pages by declaring that "the kid was leading him on" and was "gay-baiting" Foley. Savage also called the page a "sleazeball" and "a greedy, aggressive child" who "went to Washington to get ahead" and "knew how to play a congressman who was gay on the gay theme."

http://mediamatters.org/items/200610050008

 

[Rach3]

WASHINGTON (AFP) - A former congressional page said he had sex with disgraced former US lawmaker Mark Foley, according to a newspaper report, as an explosive Washington political scandal continued to unfold.

The unidentified former page told the Los Angeles Times Sunday that he was 21 when he and the Florida Republican congressman had sex, and that Foley's overtures began shortly after he left the congressional page work-study program for high school students.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061008/wl_afp/uspoliticschildsexscandal_061008141247;_ylt=AooPDTcwsUzfr5m4YaI5eEqGbToC;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The canard pedophile=gay has been used to smear gays since forever. There is no necessary connection, any more than there is between heterosexuality and raping little girls.

Positive minded people want to be careful in their usage of these concepts.

I'm not saying that there is any connection but the extreme right has already implied as much in response to this scandal. Some came right out and blamed gays for covering this up. I heard it directly in some of the initial responses from the extreme right, on CNN. It was also mentioned specifically in the panel discussion at the end of this morning's "This Week" with George Stephanolpoulis.
http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/

So your point is exactly correct: This subject is a mine field...for the Republicans.

Fareed Zakaria stated that this goes beyond the level of a simple scandal; that the damage to the Republicans is long term. Also, the gay staffers involved respond by saying that they took it directly to the Republican leadership.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

...For many of those men and other gay Republicans in political Washington, reconciling their private lives and public roles has required a discreet existence. But in the last week, the Mark Foley scandal has upset that careful balance.

...Some conservative groups blamed the “gay lifestyle” and the gathering force of the “gay agenda” for the scandal. Others equated homosexuality with pedophilia, a link that has long outraged gay men and lesbians. [continued]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/08/w...&en=04a2c0bca257d759&ei=5094&partner=homepage

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Sorry, I tried to restrain myself but I got to say it: This has become a wedgie issue for the Republicans.

 

[BobG]

Sorry, I tried to restrain myself but I got to say it: This has become a wedgie issue for the Republicans.

-groan-

Kirk Fordham doesn't help Hastert or Reynolds. Notifying Hastert or his staff in 2003 and then resigning as Foley's chief of staff; serving as Reynolds's chief of staff and then taking an active role in Foley's dealings with ABC sure makes it hard to believe the two didn't hear something about this quite a long time ago.

http://www.adelphia.net/news/read.php?ps=1018&id=13149385&_LT=HOME_LARSDCCLM_UNEWS

http://www.auburnpub.com/articles/2006/10/04/news/state/state01.txt

Reynolds has dropped into a statistical tie with his opponent for election. That could make at least two seats Foley cost Republicans, and maybe three, since this somehow seems to affect NM Rep Heather Wilson's campaign, dropping her from a tie to a 10 point deficit.

 

[ptabor]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061008/wl_afp/uspoliticschildsexscandal_061008141247;_ylt=AooPDTcwsUzfr5m4YaI5eEqGbToC;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

this sort of smearing irritates me.

If Foley was using his power to take advantage of young men for sexual purposes, then he's a creep and should be dealt with appropriately.

If, however, he's engaging in consensual sex with another man (as this article states), what right do people have to plaster this all over the papers?
The article is even clear that the contact began after the paige program.. so where do people get off printing this? His personal life is of no interest to me, nor is it anyone else's business.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

this sort of smearing irritates me.

If Foley was using his power to take advantage of young men for sexual purposes, then he's a creep and should be dealt with appropriately.

If, however, he's engaging in consensual sex with another man (as this article states), what right do people have to plaster this all over the papers?
The article is even clear that the contact began after the paige program.. so where do people get off printing this? His personal life is of no interest to me, nor is it anyone else's business.

...Monica...

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Reynolds has dropped into a statistical tie with his opponent for election.

Now ABC reports that Reynolds trails by double digits.

 

[Astronuc]

The article is even clear that the contact began after the paige program. so where do people get off printing this? His personal life is of no interest to me, nor is it anyone else's business.

Certainly if it was consensual and the other man was an adult, it is not an issue. However, it does fit a pattern that Foley was interested in pages, some of whom were considered under age in their districts. Apparently the age of consent in District of Columbia is 16, which IMO is too young.

 

[turbo]

More Republicans knew about Foley's escapades years ago. Apparently, if you're a member of Congress, you have no responsibility to stop the predations of a pedophile - it's sufficient to simply "warn" him.

The Washington Post reported Sunday night that Rep. Jim Kolbe, R-Ariz., confronted Foley about his Internet communications with teenagers as early as 2000.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061009/ap_on_go_co/congress_pages;_ylt=AsH29olYoXbys9y5G5uqARGs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3OTB1amhuBHNlYwNtdHM-

 

[ptabor]

...Monica...

IMO, these two cases (the 21 year old, specifically) are not even remotely comparable.

Bill Clinton was receiving sexual favors while he was in the oval office, a place used to conduct executive business. While he is "working" in that room, he is on my dime and I have every right to know if he is receiving oral sex on taxpayer money. Had Clinton gone to a bar and met some girl and took her home, then this would be none of my business as it was conducted on his own personal time.

Yes, Foley would have met this man while he was a page, but sexual contact did not start until after the kid was out of public service. From what I know, the sexual contact did not happen on the senate floor, so this, IMO, qualifies as his personal life.

Perhaps I'm splitting hairs here?

 

[Astronuc]

Clinton was absolutely wrong to do what he did!

However, the relationship between Monica and Bill was consensual between to adults, which still doesn't make it right, considering he was married. It was also initiated by Monica - Bill responded, but he did not initiate it.

As for being on the taxpayers dime, perhaps he did it after hours. As president, Clinton lived in the Whitehouse, so that was his home. He probably put in 8 hrs maybe 12 hrs that day.

One has to ask, when the president is on the taxpayers time and when he is not. Is Bush on the taxpayers dime when he is taking holiday at his ranch in Crawford, Texas.

As for Foley, the issue is not the consensul relationships, it is the unsolicited and salacious emails and IMs that Foley sent to one, and perhaps more, male pages under the age of 18. Even if they were 18, Foley engaged in predatory conduct, which is inappropriate.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

And for many Republicans, this is about Foley [and others] being gay as well. I know: I've spent waaaaaay too much time in the bible belt. In fact this is what gets me about the Repubicans that I know. They don't seem to uderstand that their own core would take away their rights in a heartbeat.

But the bit about Clinton being on the clock is hilarious! Yep, he should have clocked out first!

Anyway, I see that even a nuclear bomb didn't take Foley off headline news.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

With the timeline going back to 2000 now, the suggestion of an innocent oversight strains credibility.

 

[selfAdjoint]

With the timeline going back to 2000 now, the suggestion of an innocent oversight strains credibility.

Bye Bye time for Hastert, I fondly hope.

 

[turbo]

With the timeline going back to 2000 now, the suggestion of an innocent oversight strains credibility.

And some of the pages of about that time period have spoken publicly about having been warned to keep their distance from Foley. I would like to know who in Congress (members, staff, etc) warned these young men, and what they knew about Foley's behavior, and why they thought it was sufficient to warn these kids about the potential for Foley to prey upon them instead of stopping the sexual predator in the first place. No adult should cover for a pedophile when they know that children are at risk - certainly no elected or appointed public official. From news reports, it seems that the Democrats in the page program were deliberately kept in the dark about Foley's behavior, but Washington is a leaky, gossipy place, and I find it hard to believe that hints of Foley's perversions didn't get around. If any Democrats or their staff knew about this and did nothing, they should resign and potentially face criminal charges. If they knew of Foley's behavior and failed to try to stop it, they are just as complicit as Reynolds, Hastert, and Kolbe.

 

[Skyhunter]

Well, it shows that they are at least as bad as the Democrats and any other politicians, but I don't see an inflated self-image primarily as a moral flaw, rather, it shows stupidity.

This has been going on since before the Monica Lewinski scandal.

You said they, whoever "they" are, are as bad as the Democrats.

Can you name any current Democratic pedophiles that have been covered for by the current Democratic leadership?

This is not about one bad apple, as the Repub's like to say. Foley's preying on pages has been known since at least 2000, when AZ Rep. Jim Kolbe confronted Foley after being shown sexually explicit emails by a page from Foley.

A spokeswoman for Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-Ariz.) confirmed yesterday that a former page showed the congressman Internet messages that had made the youth feel uncomfortable with the direction Foley (R-Fla.) was taking their e-mail relationship. Last week, when the Foley matter erupted, a Kolbe staff member suggested to the former page that he take the matter to the clerk of the House, Karen Haas, said Kolbe's press secretary, Korenna Cline.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/08/AR2006100800855.html

This hurts the Republicans because their leadership didn't take action. Foley had been hitting on the pages for 11 years. Hastert should step down for incompetence if nothing else. If he had acted and investigated further, this issue would be dead right now. Foley could have been censured, his seat would be safe, and Hastert, Reynolds, and Boehner would be looking good.

Instead, by it coming out weeks before a crucial election, and the leadership giving conflilcting accounts of who knew what when, and what actions were or were not taken, etc, has greatly damaged the Republican chances in this election. I saw a headline that read GOP in Meltdown. It sure looks that way to me.

Forget about the speakership, I would not be surprised if Hastert loses his seat!

 

[BobG]

This hurts the Republicans because their leadership didn't take action. Foley had been hitting on the pages for 11 years. Hastert should step down for incompetence if nothing else. If he had acted and investigated further, this issue would be dead right now. Foley could have been censured, his seat would be safe, and Hastert, Reynolds, and Boehner would be looking good.

Instead, by it coming out weeks before a crucial election, and the leadership giving conflilcting accounts of who knew what when, and what actions were or were not taken, etc, has greatly damaged the Republican chances in this election. I saw a headline that read GOP in Meltdown. It sure looks that way to me.

Forget about the speakership, I would not be surprised if Hastert loses his seat!

This was Hastert's last term as speaker regardless of how the elections turn out. Hastert was DeLay's guy and DeLay is gone. He always has been somewhat incompetent in comparison to what you would normally expect from a Speaker of the House, but that's what endeared him so much to Tom DeLay. Hastert really is taking one for the GOP by sticking it out - if he can take the heat that long.

This is good for Republicans - really. Fur will fly and you'll see some serious (and some seriously needed) restructuring after this election. It might even be fun to be a Republican again.

 

[Skyhunter]

This is good for Republicans - really. Fur will fly and you'll see some serious (and some seriously needed) restructuring after this election. It might even be fun to be a Republican again.

I agree this is going to be good for the party in the long run.