Congressional Page Scandal
 

Friends,

A Republican Congressman from Florida resigns in disgrace when caught sexually pursuing underage male pages in the Capitol.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/30/us...ge&oref=slogin

Guess how this guy voted on issues of concern to LGBT persons. It's hard to feel sympathy for closeted gay politicians. He should have been "outed" years ago, in my opinion.

Steven Webster

Living by the sword
 

There is also this:

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Foleys-Folly.html

and this:

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...w123452D40.DTL

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/0...e_n_30569.html

to contemplate.

What I find interesting about this situation is that other gay House members- Democrates like Studds and Frank - survived this kind of scandal by being open and forthright in the long run. One gets the strong impression that this is not an option for Mr. Foley: his voting record and party hardly give me cover. Studds had relationships with at least two male pages while Frank consorted with a male call-boy. And all Foley is 'guilty' of here (so far) is making a pass.

I'm not saying he should have stayed in power. His party is, after all, the one pushing for an amendment to the Constitution. If you live by the sword.....

One wonders: did party leaders push him out when they couldn't manage the situation anymore?

When I heard about this, I was very curious. I guess it is the whole closeted Republican in adulthood thing that I find so bizarre. 365gay.com reports that Foley was one of the Republicans who did vote against the federal marriage amendment, though. I don't know about his voting record on other LGBT issues.

I keep seeing the reports state that one of the pages described Foley's emails as "sick, sick, sick, sick." I first read those, and while they were inappropriate (asking for a picture, would you like a birthday gift) I certainly would not describe those individual emails as "sick." However, now ABC is reporting an instant message exchange (pdf) between Foley and another page that took place in 2003. After reading that, I agree that Foley should no longer be in congress and there should be an investigation.

Another thing I find disturbing are the comments on the news reports. Some people are identifying themselves as conservative republicans, calling Foley a homosexual pedophile, and stating that such people should be "strung up." Wouldn't Foley's actions be much closer to sexual harassment, not pedophilia? Sexual harassment implies unwanted advances, and pedophilia involves children. Now when someone is underage, even if the advances are not rebuked, we still prohibit such actions to protect young people. So even if it is not harassment, there is a serious problem with Foley's actions.

I used to hear heterosexual men call pretty teenage girls "jail-bait." Meaning, of course, that until she crossed the age of consent line, sexual relations with her would get them jail. I just find it curious that some heterosexual men use the term "jail-bait" when talking about 16 or 17 year-old girls while the term "pedophilia" seems to be brought up if it involves a homosexual. I should say that I haven't seen any major news source using that term in connection with Foley, just in the comments from readers.

What do you think?

Daniel:
 

That huffingtonpost.com link that you posted contains the names of how many thousand alleged Republican perverts and/or child molesters? I'm sorry, but I totally lost count before I got even part way down the page. Somebody either really has an ax to grind, or they have WAY too much time on their hands. And Neal Horsley was accused of having sex with a WHAT? Well, at least he kept it within the species. (O.K., O.K., maybe I have too much time on my hands)

Just Kickin' Back, Bruce Chris

Interesting. I took a good look at that page now that you mentioned it. Yes. Someone is keeping tabs on the peccadillos of Republicans. Hypocrisy revealed in the Party of God? :rolleyes: Perhaps someone is doing the same for Democracts somewhere!

I think, because of the laws regarding the young man's age, it makes it a matter of pedophilia. From what I've read, he may be prosecuted under the same laws he helped draft re the internet even though no sexual relations were involved (as far as we know!). It's a crime, therefore, to make a pass at an under-aged kid via the internet.

Is there a double standard here as to how straight and gay men are referred to in these matters at the water-cooler? Certainly! In casual conversation, when girls are involved (with straight men), they are often blamed for the seduction. Boys (with gay men) are not. What's seems to be at stake here is the perception of power and status of men. And gay men don't share coveted status as yet. It's Ok for a straight guy to get it on with a girl- a mark on his belt, but the gay guy is a pedophile. Of course, both situations are abuses of power. You have a person taking advantage of someone. I think that is morally and ethically wrong, no matter how you slice and dice it. The straight guy with the underage girl is a pedophile too.

An aside: as an unexperienced young adult (over the age of consent), I experienced the advances of a man who- to put it simply- took advantage of me. The repercussions were many. The sad fact is that the person doing the abusing often doesn't see themselves as doing anything wrong. They can only see what they want. That is their first priority.

addendum:

Several key persons involved don't seem to know about the matter- a very curious thing indeed. Who, one wonders, is investigating the investigators?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/01/wa...rtner=homepage

Sympathetic with in Reason
 

Let's be a little sympathetic to Mark Foley. Remember how we were before we came out. He's obviously been going through a lot in his mind and life and has been wondering about his sexuality. I don't know his heart and won't judge him. It's between God, him and the courts.

That being said, the emails we DO know about were, at the least inappropriate and at the worst sexual harassment. Apparently, there are more that are more explicit and that is a crime. Pedophilia - NO! But it is solicitation of a minor. If the page's family refuse to press charges it will be difficult, but not impossible, to prosecute him.

The real issue is that the Republican House leadership knew most of this at least as far back as 2005 and did nothing in order to keep political power.

Not unsympathetic here, just looking at the situation in practical terms. Whatever his sexuality, Mr. Foley overstepped the line, that seems certain.

The legal angle:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/02/wa...n/02legal.html

And the political angle:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/02/us...s/02child.html

Congressional pages remember him as a really nice guy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/02/wa...rtner=homepage

Gay people do a bang-up job being nice, but not always for the best of reasons: being nice can be overcompensation behavior.

I think there is another matter at work here besides the withholding of information on the part of Republicans and their retention of power (which has yet to be proven). And that is the failure of Don't Ask Don't Tell. Whether it is in the military or civilian life, if Mr. Foley thought he could be openly gay (if he is indeed gay), this situation might never have arisen. (There is the matter of self-destructive behavior, which may play an important role here: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/01/we...ew/01leib.html)

There are those who assert that sexuality should not be an issue. I'll readily agree to that as long as no one needs to hide who they are anymore.

I see this whole situation as a warning: you can't corral, box, or deny your sexual energy. It seeks a way out and defies all attempts to suppress it. And its always better to come to terms with it in a healthy manner-with another adult.

October 10th is National Coming Out Day.

Uh, it doesn't matter what some say. If he committed impropriety, he should face criminal charges. What he committed is both pedophilia and sexual harassment. I don't want gay people associated with pedophiles. That's something we have to deflect and criticize. For decades, the psychological and medical communities in this country were convinced that homosexuals were in the same group as pedophiles, and often many believed that they were child molesters themselves.

As a gay man, I absolutely CANNOT be sympathic towards Foley at all. What he did was criminal and he deserves to be prosecuted. I feel that all child molesters should be tried in law, and should receive equal consistent trials and punishment if convicted [regardless of sexuality] (often this is not the case in the United States, as homosexual age of consent is more strictly enforced).

Even with the faults in this system, what this guy did is not only ethically and morally wrong, but also criminally wrong. He should be facing criminal charges.

Mr. Foley, is not, strictly speaking a pedophile, at least, not in the accepted medical usage. The term, however, if often used in situations like this as noted below. I used the word this way earlier in this thread. Whatever the correct usage should be, the law, another thing entirely, has its own logic. I can only imagine that Mr. Foley is railing against his own stupidity at this moment.

I disagree with this assessment and I believe the otherwise can be said (that he in fact is). I am also speaking in the legal sense. Mr Foley committed a crime and should be tried for his actions under the court of law.

They knew and covered up
 

What will be telling is how the investigation will unfold. Or there will be a repeated stonewall. Or "we'll investigate ourselves". We see how well that worked out before. I hope Pelosi is successful in getting sworn testimony. Unfortunately, we also remember how well that has worked before as well.

I wonder if the whole thing isn't orchestrated to draw attention away from the demise of habeas corpus. If in fact Hastert et al knew about Foley's activities at least a year before now (admitting only to six months), it certainly seems convenient to me for them to drop the ball now, just in front of elections. That's not a slip the RNC makes.

I believe that the sudden disclosure of Mr Foleys activities is because the RNC needs to do the Scanlon shell-game thing to redirect attention from what they have just done to the most basic fabric of American law. Foley was was an ace in the hole when Congress needed a deflection.

I agree, though, Foley is on his own between himself and G'd. He made his deals. One cannot survive inside the Beltway without making a few deals. I think that one can also reach deep inside and have an honest look at their eternity before trading it off for what's turning out to be a rather expensive thrill. The best way to go about getting into trouble is not to go looking for it. Too often, regret is an wholly avoidable place to be in. Regret at being caught in nefarious activity seems to be a regular pattern for Congressionals.

The tentacles of this whole series of incidents go way beyond who is now on the who's-who list of Congressional sex scandals. Who's been covering up and delaying investigations into the ever-unfolding Abramoff scandal, are the same "whos" who will be dragging their feet into any substantive investigation into Hastert's prior knowledge.

They're all the same Whos in that particular Whoville.

OTOH, youthful innocence only lasts so long. It's a shame to have it taken away. Foley had no right to take (or attempt to take) a youngster's innocence. It's hard to keep the faith of a little child when it's so greatly tested so early in life. I think it's a far better thing to teach a child what a predator is, in an honest fashion, than for a child ever to have to use that knowledge for discernment. Or worse, to find out the hard way. Even if there was no predation, the pages know that there could be. The fact that they could be thrown into adult intrigues is in and of itself disturbing.

I can only imagine how the parents of all the pages are feeling right now. How many adult situations, like political circuses, are those young pages expected to deal with? Neither they nor their parents bargained for any of this attention.

I wouldn't want that to happen to my young'un. I wouldn't want anything like that whole panoply of experiences to happen to me if I were sixteen.

But Foley knew up-front what he was in for. Or certainly he is old enough to know. He also had to know it was only a matter of time before the party threw him under the bus. That is a reality of the Log Closet existence.

It occurs to me that since Thursday night, I haven't heard a word on MSM about the President's self-forgiveness "we've been torturing all along, but now we're ripping the Constitution a new one so we can bring medieval law and 'justice' back home to you" legislation, yet much is being made of Foley's mess.

This has Rove's touch all over it.

Gingrich's stupid remark
 

Friends,

I just posted an item on my blog with a link to a interview with Newt Gingrich. Gingrich says the GOP didn't investigate Foley because they didn't want to be accused of "gay bashing."

http://morevile.blogspot.com/2006/10...ers.html#links

Wondered about this too, though I also think truth can be stranger than any fiction dreamed up Karl Rove. It would be a pretty desperate move on his part if true, wouldn't it? Today's NYTIimes has a rumination on misteps made by the GOP. That the author sees this as involving Dobson is, of course, a matter of interest for those of us here.

http://select.nytimes.com/2006/10/02...rugman.html?hp

All this aside, it bothers me - as it does you- that the topic of discussion- the trampling of the Constitution- has been so easily pushed aside by news of a sexual predator- which may be the best term used to desrcibe the actions of Mr. Foley. Does it work in the favor of Republicans? I guess we'll know for sure at election time. My ears did prick up a bit when I heard Dennis Hastert say that the sexuality of the person in question wasn't the issue at hand. And the media has (so far) not made the mistake of tarring gay people. Of course, this could all be political correctness speak. Even so, it's a step in the right direction. btw- for an interesting perspective on Hastert:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alec-b...t_b_30716.html

Dobson, of course, could come out (no pun intended) and say that all gay people are sexual predators. That would be true to form.

Interesting how all these issues intertwine: politics, religion, and the desire for power and influence.

Meanwhile, Foley's rehabilitation has already started.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061002/...essman_e_mails

Desperate? No, textbook moves all along...
 

Desperate? Nah. This is a very typical neocon media-manipulating tactic. This form of obfuscation has been played successfully for the last twelve years. The more Americans' attention is diverted from the real machinations of the neocons, the more the neocons have managed to get through Congress, usually very quietly, during dead-of-night sessions. The Constitution isn't dying from a full-on frontal assault; it's suffering the death of a thousand little cuts.

The PNAC site put their plan right out in the open quite a few years back. PNAC took the original site down, but you can still read their manifesto from Google Cache. The group includes the Bushes, Gingrich, Rumsfelt, and several corporate captains; much of their "logic" is built right upon Hegel. By no coincidence, Rove's dad worked for Goebbels' propaganda mill, so Rove is no stranger to crowd psychology and manipulation of opinion.

This coup d'etat has been a long time coming and should be absolutely no surprise to any American. Then again, the reason most Americans don't understand the impact of this likely-traitorous group is fairly simple, straightforward psychology. Rove works the obvious like a cheap fiddle.

So far, they've been quite successful in forwarding their plan to overthrow the Constitution, one tiny bill-addendum at a time. Like Bill Clinton said, "There's no right wing conspiracy. They're right out in the open with it." Throwing GLBT people under the bus as a group is always a useful redirection. Sex scandals of any kind seem to work as a distraction in today's sound-bite, tabloid "news". Unfortunately, the trick has worked successfully every time.

On the heels of the demise of habeas corpus, it has been most useful to redirect attention away from that with a bit of juicy gossip. If walking-around Americans realized the impact of the torture bill, there would be riots in the streets. How inconvenient that would be right before election time. Just sayin'.

A long time ago, my late stepdaddy was known to make a little 'shine. He always said if you want to hide something, just set it right out in the open. Most people simply don't pay attention to what's plainly in front of them, especially when stimulated to follow completely opposite lines of thought.

Stepdad related a couple of stories of being questioned by the sheriff, once right next to a 55-gallon drum of "fuel" right in the front yard (the sheriff kept searching for the goods everywhere but the front yard and eventually gave up -- nobody would be so stupid as to put a load of shine in the front yard, would they?); and another being met by revenuers in the woods who were looking for stepdad's cache which they simply couldn't find. If they had looked striaght up, there was a veritable tree-sized wind-chime of pint and quart Mason jars suspended by strings from high-up branches. The glint would have been obvious if the revenuers had only looked up. They didn't take in the whole situation, because stepdad was a fast talker and kept them jovially and harmlessly occupied with some of his wonderful (and highly colorful, extremely funny) tales.

The point is, stepdad never got caught with goods in hand because he was adept at telling a much better story.

I liken our current situation to that very same one. We're getting plied with tittilating stories while the real danger is in plain sight, if we only pay attention. Stepdad (and a quip erroneously attributed to PT Barnum) was unfortunately correct: a little fast talk and distraction work every time.

Well to be consistent, there are very serious dishonesty problems in both political parties. This just isn't isolated to the Republican party. This is everywhere, and is just as bad in the democratic party. Either way, I look at the upcoming elections as politics as usual with the same old faces from both parties. I'm not left and I'm not right. I just feel this country has to gain some sense and stay far away from either extreme.

I think it is a total stretch to say they are overthrowing either the constitution or committing a coup detat. The thing is in this country is that they will be out of power in 2008 (well at least the Bush administration). The other fact is either the Senate or House can go democrat (I question if that will really change anything at all). We are living in the US, not Venezuela where there is a dictator who wants to declare himself "president for life".

Ha, I'm a libertarian and I pretty much go after everyone. It gets me into a lot of trouble sometimes.

By the way, some Western European countries don't even have Habeas Corpus (or even a written constitution). Not that I'm arguing against either (I'm for it)... this country is actually more far along than quite a few countries in the OECD.

So this would be Mr. Rove's October surprise?

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...0/141615.shtml

And the guy behind the throne- with his own gay dad- is at it again, using the same old Johnny one-note tactics? You may be right. However, I believe no cooked up distraction is going to make the Iraq war and its impact on the up-coming elections go away. Things can only get messier.

Then again, the American public may be suffering from attention deficit disorder! :D

I mentioned in an earlier post that Mr. Foley's voting record did not give him 'cover'. Cover or no, the fact is that he voted against the anti-gay marriage amendment. Shame on me for not getting my facts straight.

Does this get him out of hot water with gay voters?

No.

He had to know, on some level, what he was doing.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/?p=240

Here we go
 

Shame on Tony Perkins for trying to blame this on society's growing acceptance of GLBT people.

Family Research Council Statement on Mark Foley
October 2, 2006 - Monday

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: October 2, 2006
CONTACT: J.P. Duffy or Bethanie Swendsen, (866) FRC-NEWS

Washington, D.C. - In response to the events surrounding the resignation of Congressman Mark Foley (R-FL), Family Research Council (FRC) President Tony Perkins released the following statement:

"We are all shocked by this spectacle of aberrant sexual behavior, but we shouldn't be. This is the end result of a society that rejects sexual restraints in the name of diversity. When a 16-year-old boy is not safe from sexual solicitation from an elected representative of the people, we should question the moral direction of our nation. If our children aren't safe in the halls of Congress, where are they safe? Maybe it's time to question: when is tolerance just an excuse for permissiveness?

"Both political parties need to be more serious about protecting children from sexual predators. We need public policy in our country that protects marriage, respects parental authority and aggressively polices boundaries around our children."

Jamie- It may be tacky to quote one's self, but the Mr. Dobson, true to form, has joined Mr. Perkins in uttering the same tired old rhetoric.

http://www.attytood.com/2006/10/fami...cil_blame.html

Dobson conveniently ingores the fact - and it is a fact- that the overwhelming abusers of children are straight. But he isn't intent on tarring all straight people, is he? His words are repugnant and reveal a high level of mendacity.

It really pisses me off when I hear people like him speak. I try to be diplomatic about how I feel, but if I ever were to confront that man [Dobson] diplomacy is the last thing I would think about. Link between homosexuality and child abuse? Funny that the the medical and psychological communities (APA and AMA) disagree with that.

The majority of sex abuse cases towards children are committed by heterosexual men (towards young girls). I really don't know where he is pulling those numbers from...

Pedophilia is not a sexual orientation to begin with. It is criminal behavior, like rape.