Gay Patriot Header Image

US Rep. Mark Foley Resigns From Congress

Welcome Instapundit readers!   **NEW UPDATE AT 9PM BELOW**

A friend of mine in DC is telling me that the Associated Press is reporting the imminent resignation of US Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL). 

**UPDATED**Foley has resigned from Congress this afternoon, according to the Associated Press at 3:18PM.

For those of you who haven’t seen the news about his email exchange with a 16-year old Congressional Page, the Washington Post had it on p. A7 this morning

The Democratic opponent of Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.) is calling for an investigation into an e-mail exchange that Foley conducted last year with a 16-year-old boy who had worked as a congressional page.

Foley, 52, has served in the House for six terms and is seeking reelection. He said that the five e-mails he wrote to the boy were harmless and that their publication is part of an attempt by Democrats to smear him.

In the brief but chatty e-mails, which were first reported by ABC News, Foley asked how old the boy was, inquired what he wanted for his birthday, requested a picture of the young man and told him that he had just finished a long bike ride and was going to the gym.

According to ABC, the boy forwarded the e-mail that requested his picture to an unidentified congressional staffer and wrote that the e-mail was “sick sick sick sick sick.” In another e-mail to a staffer, ABC reported, the boy wrote: “Maybe it is just me being paranoid, but seriously. This freaked me out.”

I was going to wait to see how this turned out before blogging on it.  But with reports coming out now about a resignation, I figured it was time to post on this.

First, in the interest of full disclosure, I would like to state that I have personally contributed to Rep. Foley’s House campaigns and his abandoned US Senate race.  I was friends with a number of his Congressional staff when I lived and worked in the DC metro area.  And I interacted with Rep. Foley on several occasions at business-related social functions and official meetings.  He was always a gentleman and one of the more knowledgeable Members of Congress I had ever met.

That being said, three immediate thoughts came to my mind when I first read this story earlier today: 

First — a 16-year old!?!?  I just don’t get that!!!

Second — Think a long, long time before you put stuff in email.  It never goes away and travels all around the world.

Third – Foley will be lynched, while Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) was given a pass for having his call-boy boyfriend running a prostitution ring out of Frank’s townhouse and he has won re-election ever since.

Aside from that, I am interested in seeing how the facts play out before casting judgment on anyone involved.

**FURTHER UPDATE**It sounds like a criminal investigation will (and should) occur.

Hours earlier, ABC News had read excerpts of instant messages provided by former male pages who said the congressman, under the AOL Instant Messenger screen name Maf54, made repeated references to sexual organs and acts.

In a statement, Foley said, “I am deeply sorry and I apologize for letting down my family and the people of Florida I have had the privilege to represent.”

**MORE** - The folks at National Review Online have a look at the political fallout in Florida’s 16th District in the wake of Foley’s departure.

And, here’s a history of Congressional sex scandals… one-stop shopping!

Even more Foley round-up over at StopTheACLU.

**9PM UPDATE** – There is an obsession by some commenters as to why I never “outed” Mark Foley if I knew he was gay, assuming I did. 

Unlike Liberals, I do not believe that being gay and Republican is a crime. In fact, I don’t think it is a crime to be gay with any political persuasion.  Those on the Left obviously disagree since they are obsessed with “outing” people.

But my question is, why did the St. Petersburg Times not expose Foley as a possible child sex predator if they had the story last November?

Efforts to reach the boy were unsuccessful, but he told the St. Petersburg Times last November, “I thought it was very inappropriate. After the one about the picture, I decided to stop e-mailing him back.” The Times didn’t publish the comments until Friday.

What responsibility does the St. Petersburg Times have to expose allegations of a very serious crime when they become aware of it….versus sitting on it until Election time?  It really makes me wonder what they were thinking.  Tom Bevan of RealClearPolitics agrees with me.

So if the St. Pete Times could have nailed the story down a long time ago and didn’t, that leads us to two fairly divergent pieces of speculation: Was the paper planning on springing the story closer to the election and got scooped by CREW and ABC News? Or was the paper deliberately ignoring the story in an effort to cover for Foley? Neither seems all that likely to me, so I’m at a loss as to what motivated the St. Petersburg Times to keep a lid on this story for the better part of a year. 

What is going on here?

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Share

196 Comments

  1. Congressman Foley Resigns Over Emails With Teen Page…

    Via Breitbart:
    Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla., submitted a letter of resignation from Congress on Friday in the wake of questions about e-mails he wrote a former male page, according to a congressional official.
    Foley, 52, had been considered a shoo-in for …

    Trackback by Stop The ACLU — September 29, 2006 @ 3:40 pm - September 29, 2006

  2. I’m reminded of the political axiom about being caught with a dead girl…or a live boy….in your bed.

    When you reach a certain-age, twinkies are NOT good for your health.

    Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — September 29, 2006 @ 3:44 pm - September 29, 2006

  3. Assuming that the IMs are as explosive as ABC says they are, then he had to go. On the other hand, the Democrats and certain gay organizations are in no position to cluck: they fully supported Gerry Studds even though he admitted to screwing a page. That should not be forgotten.

    Comment by Patrick Rothwell — September 29, 2006 @ 3:53 pm - September 29, 2006

  4. Not to mention Barney Frank (D-MA) and his boy lollipop. And this screamer is still in the House!

    Or sexual deviants like Teddy Kennedy and Chris Dodd in the Senate. Remember the infamous “waittress sandwich” at the Capitol Grille?

    Still – if Foley was a stalker and used AOL to IM a lot of boys in the chat room, then it is excusable. He must go.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — September 29, 2006 @ 3:58 pm - September 29, 2006

  5. where theres smoke theres fire. I knew it had to be more than just these innocous emails.

    Comment by lester — September 29, 2006 @ 3:59 pm - September 29, 2006

  6. This will get the Democrats a free seat. However, they will end up with an even bigger scandal.

    Once leftists come into power, they scare everyone away for years to come.

    Comment by Tinker — September 29, 2006 @ 3:59 pm - September 29, 2006

  7. #4: “if Foley was a stalker and used AOL to IM a lot of boys in the chat room, then it is excusable”

    Freudian slip, Petey?

    Looks like Foley’s name will stay on the ballot but the GOP can run someone else who will get Foley’s votes. Yeah, all those Repubs pulling a lever or whatever for a child molester! Methinks another Dem pickup from a safe repub seat.

    Comment by Ian — September 29, 2006 @ 4:04 pm - September 29, 2006

  8. Congressman Mark ‘Page Boy’ Foley Resigns…

    I thought twice (actually, four times) about blogging this, but what the hay?
    I try to avoid salacious stuff, but it’s Friday, so…whatever.
    Last night I read that Republican Congressmen Mark Foley sent strange e-mail message to a 16-year…

    Trackback by La Shawn Barber's Corner — September 29, 2006 @ 4:04 pm - September 29, 2006

  9. [Comment deleted.]

    Comment by Queer Patriot — September 29, 2006 @ 4:22 pm - September 29, 2006

  10. In mentioning one of many felonious Massachusetts politicians, you missed the best possible comparison – Congressman Gerry Studds. Studds raped a page, was forced to admit it, defiantly claimed consenting adults, and was reelected several times after it came out.

    I hope Foley faces full legal scrutiny and if anything shows up that hints he did anything with a child that he goes to jail.

    I wonder how the media would treat this if he were a dem…

    Comment by Sean — September 29, 2006 @ 4:27 pm - September 29, 2006

  11. #4 – Mea culpa. My next-to-last sentence should have said “INexcusable.”

    If any of you think I would ever condone any kind of NAMBLA-type activity for anyone, you are wrong. There is a reason why it is considered an age of consent.

    I’m still waiting for other libs to decry the hypocrisy in their own party (Barney Frank, Gerry Stubbs et al). Show us your true colors.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — September 29, 2006 @ 4:28 pm - September 29, 2006

  12. [...] Update II: Also commenting: Gay Patriot (who beat me to it on the comparison between this scandal and the one about Rep. Barney Frank from the late 80s), La Shawn Barber, Stop The ACLU, Blog For All, Suitably Flip By: Sister Toldjah in: Breaking News Stories, Congress | Email this post    Trackback URI for this post: http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2006/09/29/good-riddance/trackback/ » Trackbacks & Pingbacks [...]

    Pingback by Sister Toldjah » US Rep. Mark Foley: Good riddance (UPDATE II) — September 29, 2006 @ 4:49 pm - September 29, 2006

  13. Why can’t the Repubs in his district pull a “New Joisey” and simply appoint someoe else?

    Comment by paul a'barge — September 29, 2006 @ 5:07 pm - September 29, 2006

  14. Congressman Mark Foley…

    Full Disclosure- Before commenting I must tell that my wife has met the Congressman’s parents but not Mark Foley himself. The Foleys were at one time parrishoners at the same Roman Catholic Church dear wife and I attend and where DW works as church r….

    Trackback by The Florida Masochist — September 29, 2006 @ 5:11 pm - September 29, 2006

  15. Clause 4: US Constitution

    When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies.

    My take is the seat remains empty and the Governor, Jeb Bush, has to call for a special election allowing due process for nominations and actual election to take place. I guess this would rule out this November.

    Comment by Benj — September 29, 2006 @ 5:16 pm - September 29, 2006

  16. Wasn’t Mark Foley the inspiration for the Congressman charactere in Striptease?

    Good blg, by the way, I found you through Instapundit.

    Comment by VCID — September 29, 2006 @ 5:17 pm - September 29, 2006

  17. Foley is as pathetic as McGreevy.

    Comment by Chase — September 29, 2006 @ 5:27 pm - September 29, 2006

  18. If you personally know Mark Foley, then why can’t you or why won’t you report whether or not he is indeed a homosexual?

    Congressman Foley has repeatedly denied being gay. If this incident is true, then he has lied to his constituents. Shouldn’t that be the story?

    Comment by Anonymous — September 29, 2006 @ 5:34 pm - September 29, 2006

  19. 4. Forgive my ignorance…

    Althought Barney Franks acquaintaince did run an illegal prostitution ring out of his townhouse, wasn’t that acquaintance at least of legal age?

    I can’t wait to read the rest of this, hoping it was something that was exagerated. Of course, the first couple of lines from the e-mail in which Foley asked for a pic reminded me of a conversation negotiating a hook up.

    Comment by James — September 29, 2006 @ 5:35 pm - September 29, 2006

  20. Given the age of the page involved, I think resignation is in order. I don’t see how you can defend this kind of behavior, if the allegations are true.

    I also have issues with congressmembers propositioning or becoming sexually involved with pages or interns-too much power exchange in those relationships for me to be comfortable.

    The dems I am sure are happy to have gotten a free seat.

    Comment by just me — September 29, 2006 @ 5:36 pm - September 29, 2006

  21. #18 – I am not in the habit of “outing” people. That is a personal decision.

    #20 – I am certainly not defending any of the alleged behavior. Where on earth do you come up with that?

    Comment by GayPatriot — September 29, 2006 @ 5:40 pm - September 29, 2006

  22. If you personally know Mark Foley, then why can’t you or why won’t you report whether or not he is indeed a homosexual?

    There are two reasons.

    One, because it is no one else’s business but Foley’s.

    Gays demand that no one judge us or make statements about us based on what we do in the bedroom; we should practice what we preach.

    Two, if the allegations are true and Foley is a pedophile, then why on earth do you want to give more credence to the belief that gays are pedophiles by trying to claim he’s gay?

    Althought Barney Franks acquaintaince did run an illegal prostitution ring out of his townhouse, wasn’t that acquaintance at least of legal age?

    So it’s OK to use Congressional privilege to protect and shield someone running a gay prostitution ring out of your house as long as they’re of legal age.

    I believe that is called “equivocation”, and it’s a tactic often used by Democrats to explain why they don’t have to condemn actions by theirs that they would condemn in others.

    Take a lesson from this thread, James; every one of the gay conservatives has stated bluntly that, if the allegations are true, Foley not only should resign, but should be prosecuted. But the Dems, when confronted with examples of their own misdeeds, try to equivocate why they shouldn’t be held to the same standards.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 29, 2006 @ 5:43 pm - September 29, 2006

  23. 22, you should have learned by now that I write what I mean and mean what I write. If I didn’t type that I thought it was okay to use congressional privilege to shield someone, then you can go ahead and assume that I do not think so. If you’re not certain, you have my email address and can ask me either there or on this board for clarification.

    My comment was actually meant to be a response Peter’s comment (4). Abuse of power is never okay, but in the case of Foley, the e-mail did look to be inappropriate and sickening to me given the page’s age. I’m hoping that as I read more, I’ll see evidence that the e-mails actually were blown out of proportion.

    Comment by James — September 29, 2006 @ 5:56 pm - September 29, 2006

  24. The New Jersey Supreme Court had to ignore their statutes to allow the Dems to replace Toricelli, though the Dems had freely voted for the scandal-ridden fellow in the primary, on the grounds that they would be deprived of an opportunity to vote for a candidate of their own choosing.

    Don’t forget Missouri 2000, where Ashcroft lost to a corpse, whose widow was appointed to the nomination/senate in his stead.

    It depends on Florida’s laws. But then the Florida Supreme Court has already demonstrated it will ignore crystal clear legislation to achieve the outcome favored by four of its members (See Gore v. Bush, 2000), so they should be willing to set aside any possible restrictions to allowing the GOP to field another candidate.

    Comment by Brezh — September 29, 2006 @ 6:05 pm - September 29, 2006

  25. Just for the record, as a liberal dem., at the time (s), I thought that both Gerry Studds and Barney Frank should have been held accountable for their roles in these alleged violations, and that they should have been investigated and prosecuted if found guilty, regardless of their political affilations/status. I know many other liberals who expressed the same sentiments, and who also thought that both reps should resign. We’re not ALL ‘party blilnd’ when criminal activity is involved.

    I appreciate the fact that GP posted this item, especially knowing that Mark Foley is a republican. He could’ve remained completely silent on the subject, and never addressed it. It speaks volumes for his character. Kudos, GP

    Comment by ndtovent — September 29, 2006 @ 6:13 pm - September 29, 2006

  26. If it is “no one’s business but Foley’s”, then why did he respond to the questions by saying “I am not gay”? He should have said “it isn’t your business” or “that’s private”. Both of those statements are TRUE. But he DIDN’T say that. He can’t say “I am not gay” and then come along and claim that his sexual orientation is private. Once he discusses it publicly, especially when he makes a FALSE statement about it, it is no longer private. It is public. And it is of public concern because voters have a right to know if their elected officals are lying to their faces.

    The story isn’t if he is gay or not, but whether or not he LIED when he claimed publicly that he was not. And if Gaypatriot and other gay Republicans KNOW that he was lying, then why haven’t they reported on it? Isn’t lying by a Congressman newsworthy? Clinton saying he never had sex with that woman sure seemed newsworthy to you at the time.

    Comment by Anonymous — September 29, 2006 @ 6:16 pm - September 29, 2006

  27. Anonymous, let me use emphasis in text to show the problem with your argument.

    The story isn’t if he is gay or not, but whether or not he LIED when he claimed publicly that he was not. And if Gaypatriot and other gay Republicans KNOW that he was lying, then why haven’t they reported on it?

    So, to summarize:

    1) You don’t know whether or not Foley is gay

    2) You don’t know whether or not GP knew whether or not Foley is gay.

    But you are saying that you absolutely know that Foley is gay, that he lied to his constituency, and that GayPatriot covered it up — even though you admit that you don’t know whether any of those are true.

    It should be obvious to anyone at this point that you’ve made up your mind and are acting accordingly, facts be damned. As would be expected, you’re using the liberal leftist tactic of making accusations by asking questions, and when you are cornered, you’ll try to whine that you didn’t really mean it.

    Furthermore, one might point out the key difference between Foley and Clinton: Foley resigned of his own accord without clear proof of him having done anything other than email people, and Clinton refused to resign despite having openly lied to the American public and given false testimony before a grand jury about his seduction and sex with an intern in the Oval Office — something that would qualify as “harassment” anywhere but in the Democratic Party.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 29, 2006 @ 6:36 pm - September 29, 2006

  28. Quite a shocker. The initial emails sounded like a whole lot of nuthin. Harmless stuff with the congressman getting chatty with a former staffer. The explanation for the picture request seemed totally reasonable.

    I guess I was wrong. Quick resignation, must be something.

    Comment by byrd — September 29, 2006 @ 7:00 pm - September 29, 2006

  29. GP sorry, I didn’t think you were-my “you” was the general you, not you personally. Probably should have used anyone instead.

    Comment by just me — September 29, 2006 @ 7:13 pm - September 29, 2006

  30. mayhaps the dude just wanted some young browneye.

    Comment by Deliverance — September 29, 2006 @ 7:17 pm - September 29, 2006

  31. North Dallas 30–

    I KNOW the man is gay, because he is asking 16-year-old boys if he makes them horny, and then saying “cool” when they say he is. So I think that we are all now clear on the question of whether or not this 52-year-old bachelor is gay or not.

    And, indeed, I do not know whether or not Gaypatriot knew before today if Foley was gay… which is why I asked him to please say if he knew or not. Gaypatriot seems to think that a man who says “I am not gay” should not be “outed”, even if that statement is a false one. Lying isn’t serious? Truth doesn’t matter?

    I don’t think it unreasonable to ask a gay Republican, who brags about extensive Washington contacts and admits to a personal acquaintance with Foley, to comment on whether or not he knew that Foley was indeed a homosexual. Who better to know the answer (other than 16-year-old pages, I mean)?

    And if Gaypatriot DID know that Foley was gay and that Foley was lying when he denied being gay, why wasn’t that matter worthy of being reported upon? A man who goes in front of a camera to talk about his sexual orientation can hardly plead privacy later. He is a public figure who has publicly discussed his sexual orientation in the past (when it was politically convenient for him, I might add)… so that makes it public. Mark Foley waived his claim to privacy on this issue when he opened his big mouth and lied about it.

    And I would also point out that you are flat-out lying about the facts. Foley did NOT resign over the emails. He resigned after ABC’s Brian Ross confronted him with Instant Messages provided to ABCNews by OTHER pages… Instant Messages that were sexually explicit, obscene, and unfit for broadcast television. This information has been available all afternoon. So you are either misrepresenting the facts or you just don’t know what the facts are. Which is it? Either way, you aren’t really qualified to comment on facts about which you plainly know nothing.

    Either way, the question remains: did Gaypatriot know that Mark Foley was a homosexual before today? If so, then why didn’t he report that Foley was lying when he denied being gay? Seems simple enough. Answering those questions won’t harm anyone, will it? Did gay Republicans keep hush-hush over Foley’s sexual orientation?

    (On an aside, it seems that SOMEONE knew about it. According to new reports, during orientation Congressional pages were routinely warned about Mark Foley. Did this fact ALSO escape the notice of gay Republicans who were “friends with a number of his Congressional staff” and “interacted with Rep. Foley on several occasions”? If this was an open secret in Washington, why is it so unreasonable to ask Gaypatriot if he was in on the secret or not?)

    Comment by Anonymous — September 29, 2006 @ 7:28 pm - September 29, 2006

  32. Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) Resigns Over IMs With Teen Page (VIDEO)…

    Florida Rep. Mark Foley’s resignation came just hours after ABC News questioned the congressman about a series of sexually explicit instant messages involving congressional pages, high school students who are under 18 years of age.
    In Congress, R…

    Trackback by Ms Underestimated — September 29, 2006 @ 7:52 pm - September 29, 2006

  33. “First — a 16-year old!?!? I just don’t get that!!!”

    Question from a straight male: assuming the story is about a 52 year-old gay man persuing a 16 year-old, would this really be suprising? I recall reading an in-depth article on the gay ‘cult of youth’ (which I guess mirrors the general fetishization of youth that seems prevalent in contemporary western culture).

    Comment by fidens — September 29, 2006 @ 7:58 pm - September 29, 2006

  34. Same sex pedophiles are gay or bisexual by definition.
    Asserting they aren’t is a bizarre form of political correctness.

    Comment by Bill — September 29, 2006 @ 8:00 pm - September 29, 2006

  35. -So it’s OK to use Congressional privilege to protect and shield someone running a gay prostitution ring out of your house as long as they’re of legal age.-

    No, it’s not, but I did wonder why that was immediately brought up, when what happened with Frank (which he claimed he didn’t know about) was with legal adults. What happened with Foley was not. It came across as trying to find anything comparable to a Democrat, as if a Democrat having a scandal somehow minimizes what happened with Foley.

    If people around the time of Frank had said, “At least he isn’t Bob Bauman!!!”, I doubt Republicans would have been appeased.

    Comment by Carl — September 29, 2006 @ 8:02 pm - September 29, 2006

  36. Rather ironic that he was the founder and chair of the “missing and expolited children” committee. Maybe looking for an opportunity to do a little “investigating” on his own? He might wind up in the can for some of the laws he wrote or sponsored (but obviously, not the can he was hoping to wind up in).

    Comment by Tom — September 29, 2006 @ 8:04 pm - September 29, 2006

  37. Good thing he’s a member of the GOP (God’s Ordained Party), the ones who will protect s from those eeevil homosexuals!

    /sarc

    Comment by the friendly grizzly — September 29, 2006 @ 8:07 pm - September 29, 2006

  38. Writing from a rental computer (mine is in the shop with a fried hard drive), I can only say how sick this whole story makes me. I should have more to say on this tomorrow.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — September 29, 2006 @ 8:11 pm - September 29, 2006

  39. I KNOW the man is gay, because he is asking 16-year-old boys if he makes them horny, and then saying “cool” when they say he is.

    Ah yes, because we all know people who are turned on by underage boys are gay, don’t we?

    Most normal people call them pedophiles, but hey, if you feel the need to associate being gay with wanting sex with underage children, feel free.

    And, indeed, I do not know whether or not Gaypatriot knew before today if Foley was gay… which is why I asked him to please say if he knew or not.

    Actually, this is what you said:

    If you personally know Mark Foley, then why can’t you or why won’t you report whether or not he is indeed a homosexual?

    And later this:

    And if Gaypatriot and other gay Republicans KNOW that he was lying, then why haven’t they reported on it?

    You didn’t ask whether or not he knew; you were berating him, saying that he DID know and that he was covering up for Foley.

    And now to the real issue:

    Gaypatriot seems to think that a man who says “I am not gay” should not be “outed”, even if that statement is a false one. Lying isn’t serious? Truth doesn’t matter?

    Don’t even try to pull that one, puppet, unless you’re ready to say that outings like this are justified. Furthermore, I have yet to see you comment on, as I pointed out, the fact that your fellow Democratic puppets have protected antigay Democrats from outing.

    What’s the matter? Lying isn’t serious? Truth isn’t important? Why are you holding back from outing anyone then, puppet, especially antigay Democrats?

    Don’t try to pretend this is anything noble on your part. This is playing with peoples’ private lives for political advantage, which is something that gays supposedly oppose. If you had an ounce of dignity or self-worth, you would realize the inherent contradiction — but you do not.

    People like GayPatriot and myself recognize that outing is an inherently cowardly and hateful act that harms people far more than it helps them. Personally, I think only a sick and psychotic individual with zero integrity and empathy would in any way support it — which I suppose nicely captures you.

    And I would also point out that you are flat-out lying about the facts. Foley did NOT resign over the emails. He resigned after ABC’s Brian Ross confronted him with Instant Messages provided to ABCNews by OTHER pages… Instant Messages that were sexually explicit, obscene, and unfit for broadcast television.

    Notice I said “clear proof”. Given that news media outlets have faked stories before, we’ll wait and see what shows up in court.

    And personally, I don’t care why Foley resigned; it was his job to leave. If these messages are true, he can and should be criminally prosecuted.

    Meanwhile, what happened to the Clinton comparison? Are you no longer demanding resignation for things that are “sexually explicit, obscene, and unfit for broadcast television”?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 29, 2006 @ 8:17 pm - September 29, 2006

  40. This is a real shame and unfathomable. In reading the posted IM’s between Foley and the Page, I cannot believe his horrific judgement. He was either on drugs, mentally ill or arrogant beyond reason. His frequent typos and misspelled words (Pensecola) make me think it might be the former. Whatever the reason, he is gone and should be investigated and prosecuted if he broke the law. Florida’s election law and timorous Republicans–in contrast to Democrats in NJ, preclude fixing this election. As such, this seat may swing away. However, the seat will be up for grabs in 2008, so his elected replacement best not get too comfortable in his office.

    Comment by Scott — September 29, 2006 @ 8:27 pm - September 29, 2006

  41. I don’t understand this obsession by (ironically) “Anonymous” as to whether I knew Foley was gay and was “lying” about it. If you knew anything about the history of the multiple attempts by liberals to “officially out” Foley, he never confirmed nor denied his sexual orientation.

    Who the hell am I to drag someone out of the closet if they don’t want to be? A Liberal Hypocrite who whines about “privacy”? Nope, not me.

    Pedophilia is a whole other matter and frankly I don’t understand it nor have witnessed anyone in my entire life exhibiting that kind of behavior. I can assure you if I ever did or do, I will report it to the authorities.

    Comment by GayPatriot — September 29, 2006 @ 8:44 pm - September 29, 2006

  42. Rep. Mark Foley Resigns Over Sexually Explicit Ema…

    Earlier reporting about Foley’s emails did not make any references to email of a sexually explicit nature, which is why the earlier reporting didn’t catch my attention. This particular report certainly puts those email communications in a different l…

    Trackback by A Blog For All — September 29, 2006 @ 8:46 pm - September 29, 2006

  43. [Comment deleted.   This commenter has been repeatedly banned under his other names.  He will continue to be banned.]

    Comment by Anonymous — September 29, 2006 @ 8:49 pm - September 29, 2006

  44. I certainly do not condone Rep. Foley’s behavior but I met him in DC several years ago and he was one of the more intelligent Reps. that I have spoken with.
    I just do not understand this behavior from someone who knows he is the focus of the media.
    However, whether Rep. Foley is or is not gay is his business alone.

    Comment by PatriotMom — September 29, 2006 @ 9:05 pm - September 29, 2006

  45. You are right, Mom!

    (And you wonder where I get my strong sense of right and wrong from?) :-)

    Comment by GayPatriot — September 29, 2006 @ 9:10 pm - September 29, 2006

  46. A couple of points. First, it was interesting to observe that the focus of the first comments here on this news was to drag up the names of a couple of gay Dems who were in similar trouble years ago. I guess “Democrats do it too” is the knee-jerk whine for repubs. Second, if we’re talking 16-yer-olds, then technically, it’s not pedophilia but ephebophilia. That said, it’s probably quite illegal in Florida and may be illegal in DC. Third, I thought it was pretty well known that Foley was gay – doesn’t he live with a partner in DC? Fourth, Bruce, the reason Foley was always a gentleman around you is perhaps because you’re a little long in the tooth for him. ;-) Lastly, I suspect there’s a lot more taudry details to come out. Foley has almost certainly been doing this for many years – attraction to children is not something you just wake up to one morning in your forties. Pretty brazen about it too suggesting either a pathological personality or an overconfidence bred of years of getting away with this stuff.

    Damn him to hell though for adding fuel to the fire that gay men are all predators chasing after kids.

    Comment by Ian — September 29, 2006 @ 9:18 pm - September 29, 2006

  47. Isn’t NAMBLA just a group of gay men who promote sex with kiddies? I think any decent gay should condemn these gutter crawlers to hell, but I don’t see that happening. They write in gay magazines, march in gay parades, and seem to be accepted by the gay community. Why? This creep was likely a member or at least believed in NAMBLA’s preachings. NAMBLA should be classified as a terrorist group which preys on kids.

    Comment by kat — September 29, 2006 @ 9:20 pm - September 29, 2006

  48. Good Riddenance to Sicko Congressman…

    The hot, steamy news out of D.C. is Congressman Mark Foley resigning from his seat when news got out about……

    Trackback by The American Mind — September 29, 2006 @ 9:37 pm - September 29, 2006

  49. Ah, yes… when you are defending a morally bankrupt position (”It is Foley’s own business if he wants to lie to the voters about his sexual orientation and no one should call him a liar for doing it.”)

    And now we see the tactic of the cornered liberal — to assume that they can misquote someone with impunity as a desperate means of deflecting attention.

    It’s OK, we understand.

    We know you didn’t think through your argument linking homosexuality to pedophilia.

    We know your rhetoric on outing collapses when confronted with real-life examples of what happens when it’s actually applied — and the fact that you and yours have had no trouble with obscuring truth and lying when it’s antigay Democrats you’re protecting.

    And I particularly liked this statement on your part:

    And I thought Ann Coulter was the only gay man (excuse me… “transgendered person”) who engaged in this sort of vacuous name-calling.

    Obviously you haven’t looked in the mirror lately.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 29, 2006 @ 10:16 pm - September 29, 2006

  50. #47: “I think any decent gay should condemn these gutter crawlers to hell”

    I just did.

    “but I don’t see that happening.”

    Well then you must be blind.

    “They write in gay magazines, march in gay parades, and seem to be accepted by the gay community.”

    Care to provide some specific examples? Probably not since you won’t likely find any. You’re just shooting off your mouth like a typical homohater.

    Comment by Ian — September 29, 2006 @ 10:27 pm - September 29, 2006

  51. First, it was interesting to observe that the focus of the first comments here on this news was to drag up the names of a couple of gay Dems who were in similar trouble years ago. I guess “Democrats do it too” is the knee-jerk whine for repubs.

    Actually, the comparison was not that “Dems do it too”, but “Dems do it too — and unlike Republicans, they refuse to resign, their partisans make excuses for them, and they are perpetuated in office.”

    In short, Ian, Dems protect pedophiles, rapists, and philanderers; Republicans demand they resign and condemn their actions.

    Damn him to hell though for adding fuel to the fire that gay men are all predators chasing after kids.

    Foley hasn’t said word one about being gay, or that being gay somehow justifies his actions — UNLIKE Democratic Governor McGreevey, who leftist and Dem gays are still protecting, claiming his being gay is justification for overt corruption, public sex, and cheating on his wife.

    Ironically, Ian, it’s people like yourself, who are so desperate to prove that Foley is gay, who are doing the most to make the linkage between being gay and pedophilia. But you’re not intelligent enough to realize that.

    I think any decent gay should condemn these gutter crawlers to hell, but I don’t see that happening.

    This gay agrees with you 100%, Kat.

    The reason most gays don’t is because teenage and child sex is something that feminist and abortionist groups — who both pay and bully gays to comply with them — encourage.

    Teenagers and children tend to lack judgment, take unnecessary risks, and fail to use safety measures and devices because they are emotionally and intellectually immature. Planned Parenthood and others make hundreds, sometimes thousands, of dollars on teenagers and children having abortions; it is in their financial and ideological best interest to encourage teenage sex for that reason, which is why they support lowering of age of consent laws, bans on parental notification, and other activities meant to encourage teenagers to act irresponsibly and have sex.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 29, 2006 @ 10:31 pm - September 29, 2006

  52. Care to provide some specific examples? Probably not since you won’t likely find any. You’re just shooting off your mouth like a typical homohater.

    Harry Hay, Los Angeles Pride March, numerous writings.

    Idiots like you, Ian, are why the gay community can’t advance; you treat people like dirt based on your ignorance of reality, and then you act surprised when they refuse to believe you and vote against you.

    Kat is right — gays do let pedophiles write in gay magazines, march in gay parades, and be accepted by the gay community.

    Denying it doesn’t make it go away.

    Directly confronting it, pointing out and admitting that it happens, and condemning it des.

    Kat, you’re right — gays have done all of what you mentioned. They were wrong then, and they’re wrong now. Pedophilia is not only sick and wrong, it has nothing to do with being gay — and anyone who tries to tell you differently is lying.

    Furthermore, puppets like Ian, whose ignorance makes them spew hate against people like you who ask honest questions, have the same problem with rationalizing bad behavior on the basis of their being gay — and, if you stick around here, you’ll see that gays condemn that as well.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 29, 2006 @ 10:40 pm - September 29, 2006

  53. Did Frank solicit sex from a child? NO. Don’t be a jerk.

    Comment by jeff — September 29, 2006 @ 10:57 pm - September 29, 2006

  54. “What responsibility does the St. Petersburg Times have to expose allegations of a very serious crime when they become aware of it….versus sitting on it until Election time? …What is going on here?”

    Well, looks like the Republican House Leadership has also known for nearly a year and done nothing:

    http://tinyurl.com/fcd6y

    What IS going on here? Maybe Foley patched Denny Hastert in on a conference call for one of his sessions with the kid. Eeeeewwwww!! Time for the popcorn!

    Comment by Ian — September 29, 2006 @ 11:03 pm - September 29, 2006

  55. Nice try, Ian. Did you link again without looking?

    Rep. Rodney Alexander, R-La., who sponsored the page from his district, told reporters that he learned of the e-mails from a reporter some months ago and passed on the information to Rep. Thomas Reynolds, R-N.Y., chairman of the House Republican campaign organization.

    Alexander said he did not pursue the matter further because “his parents said they didn’t want me to do anything.”

    Carl Forti, a spokesman for the GOP campaign organization, said Reynolds learned from Alexander that the parents did not want to pursue the matter. Forti said, however, that the matter did go before the House Page Board — the three lawmakers and two House officials who oversee the pages.

    Shimkus, who avoided reporters for hours, worked out his statement with Speaker Dennis Hastert’s office. He said he promptly investigated what he thought were non-explicit message exchanges.

    “It has become clear to me today, based on information I only now have learned, that Congressman Foley was not honest about his conduct,” Shimkus said.

    Shimkus said that in late 2005 he learned — through information passed along by Alexander’s office — about an e-mail exchange in which Foley asked about the youngster’s well-being after Hurricane Katrina, and requested a photograph.

    “Congressman Foley told the (House) clerk and me that he was simply acting as a mentor … and that nothing inappropriate had occurred,” Shimkus said.

    Foley was ordered to cease all contact with the former page and assured Shimkus he would do so, the statement said. He also was advised to watch his conduct with current and former House pages, and gave assurance he would do so, Shimkus said.

    He added there were no further complaints.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 29, 2006 @ 11:10 pm - September 29, 2006

  56. Ooops, it may not have been Denny, rather, the leader who was informed was apparently John Bohner http://tinyurl.com/zq97j

    How a propos. This story is getting juicier by the minute. And it couldn’t happen to a better bunch of scoundrels. Countdown to Speaker Pelosi!!

    Comment by Ian — September 29, 2006 @ 11:13 pm - September 29, 2006

  57. [Comment deleted.   This commenter has been repeatedly banned under his other names.  He will continue to be banned.]

    Comment by Anonymous — September 29, 2006 @ 11:17 pm - September 29, 2006

  58. LOL….listen to the puppet Democrat Anonymous suddenly trying to play moralist.

    Parents can legally consent to sexual predation on behalf of their minor children?

    Parents can consent to allow their child to not only have sex with, but be married to much older individuals when they are underage — indeed, well within the range of the teenager involved.

    What makes this really funny is that this rhetoric is coming from Democrats like Anonymous, who oppose even parental notification when it comes to their children having sex. If a 52-year-old man has sex with a 16-year-old girl, for instance, Democrats would oppose telling her parents, because it might be harder for the girl to have an abortion.

    Nevertheless, I suppose we should applaud that Anonymous, Ian, and their other Democratic friends have finally come around to reality and demanded that anyone who has sex with an underage minor be arrested and turned over to the police as a “sexual predator”.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 29, 2006 @ 11:33 pm - September 29, 2006

  59. Also, it’s good to see Ian and Anonymous finally admit that sexual talk, sexual chat, and other statements qualify as “sexual predation”.

    When can we expect them to demand the resignation of prominent Democrats like Barney Frank for being sexual predators?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 29, 2006 @ 11:36 pm - September 29, 2006

  60. “Studds raped a page … ”

    The page was 17 at the time, and said the sexual relationship was consensual. On what basis do you make the rape claim?

    “the Democrats and certain gay organizations are in no position to cluck: they fully supported Gerry Studds even though he admitted to screwing a page. That should not be forgotten.”

    Studds, of course, did not set himself up as a pillar of family values in general and specifically did not make a career out of highlighting Internet predators preying on young people as Foley did.

    That said, Studds was censured. Presumably, Foley would have been too, and he could have tried to stay in the race, but I doubt Florida would have been quite as understanding a polity as Massachussetts was for Studds.

    Comment by Brian Carnell — September 29, 2006 @ 11:49 pm - September 29, 2006

  61. Some people here are saying that Rep. Foley should be prosecuted and has committed a serious crime. But for what would he be prosecuted? Unless he actually touched the boy, there is no crime here. Since the e-mails were not sexually explicit, his behavior can only be categorized as inappropriate.

    I think it is wild speculation to assume that Mark Foley is a sexual predator in the absence of any evidence that he touched a child. It is however more bad publicity for the gay community. Foley’s now the Republican McGreevy.

    Comment by Chase — September 29, 2006 @ 11:50 pm - September 29, 2006

  62. Christ on a crutch, anon, learn how to read.

    [Shimkus] said he promptly investigated what he thought were non-explicit message exchanges.

    “It has become clear to me today, based on information I only now have learned, that Congressman Foley was not honest about his conduct,” Shimkus said.

    (emphasis added)

    For the reading-impaired, that means the GOP leaders didn’t know of any explicit messages because Foley lied to them. The parents apparently did not know of any such messages, nor did the boy apparently mention any.

    In other words, the exchange was questionable, but not actionable, based on what they knew at the time.

    Trust a brain-dead Dem to twist that around into an accusation against the GOP by phrasing his character attack as a passive/aggressive “question.”

    Kudos to GayPatriot for shining some light on this event.

    Comment by Casey Tompkins — September 29, 2006 @ 11:53 pm - September 29, 2006

  63. The page was 17 at the time, and said the sexual relationship was consensual. On what basis do you make the rape claim?

    Well, you see, Brian, Democrats like Anonymous and IanRaj say that anyone who even talks sexually to a minor is a sexual predator; therefore, Studds, who actually had sex with the underage minor in question, is quite obviously a rapist.

    Let’s see if IanRaj and Anonymous apply their own rules to their fellow Democrats — or if they come up with excuses for why it was all right for Studds to have sex with a page and stay in office.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 29, 2006 @ 11:59 pm - September 29, 2006

  64. love that GOP! Noe and Foley history within 2 weeks!?…what good family values they espouse! How proud all you conservatives must be! Toss in Duke Cunningham, Abramoff, and the world’s greatest criminal, george bullshit, and one can see why both the house and senate will change hands in six weeks.

    all ya’all better get a fixin on that legislation giving this filthy administration a free pass for all their past crimes. there gonna need it to stay out of jail.

    oh, and let me guess, foley voted against any gay equality legislation, eh? pathetic, simply pathetic.

    Comment by rightiswrong — September 30, 2006 @ 12:10 am - September 30, 2006

  65. Oops, I guess I am behind on this story. I didn’t know there were now instant messages involved that are indeed sexually explicit. Yeah, that sort of changes the dynamics. But still, I think a prosecution would be difficult here, due to the inherent difficultes in validating that instant message conversations have not been fabricated.

    Remember, Mark Foley should be presumed innocent. I don’t think his resignation should in any way be pressumed to be an admission of guilt.

    Comment by Chase — September 30, 2006 @ 12:14 am - September 30, 2006

  66. Most normal people call them pedophiles, but hey, if you feel the need to associate being gay with wanting sex with underage children, feel free.

    Well, there are gay pedophiles and there are straight pedophiles. The gay ones prefer children of the same sex, whereas the straight ones prefer the opposite sex. Are you claiming that a gay man could never, by definition, be a pedophile?

    Comment by Korla Pundit — September 30, 2006 @ 12:15 am - September 30, 2006

  67. oh, and chase of #61…apparently you haven’t seen any of the “to catcha predator” series on dateline nbc? sexually explicit talk w/a minor is illegal in most states. here in OH the GOP atty general candidate, betty montgomery, is running an ad stating that precisely…it’s all covered within meghans law or somesuch crap to “protect america’s families.”

    maybe we need the HP spy leaders eavesdropping on congressional members to root out all this gop evil.

    Comment by rightiswrong — September 30, 2006 @ 12:15 am - September 30, 2006

  68. Ian–don’t get defensive–I have nothing against gays except NAMBLA–them I despise with every inch of my being. There seem to be some very nice gays here and I respect them and certainly feel no hatred. Your life is your own–just don’t do it with kiddies. Same for hetero pedos–they are no better. Thank you, North Dallas Thirty.
    Anyways here is a sample:
    (Care to provide some specific examples? Probably not since you won’t likely find any. You’re just shooting off your mouth like a typical homohater).
    {The Journal of Homosexuality recently published a special double-issue entitled, “Male Intergenerational Intimacy,” containing many articles portraying sex between men and minor boys as loving relationships. One article said parents should look upon the pedophile who loves their son “not as a rival or competitor, not as a theft of their property, but as a partner in the boy’s upbringing, someone to be welcomed into their home.”
    In 1995 the homosexual magazine “Guide” said, “We can be proud that the gay movement has been home to the few voices who have had the courage to say out loud that children are naturally sexual” and “deserve the right to sexual expression with whoever they choose. …” The article went on to say: “Instead of fearing being labeled pedophiles, we must proudly proclaim that sex is good, including children’s sexuality … we must do it for the children’s sake.”
    Larry Kramer, the founder of ACT-UP, a noted homosexual activist group, wrote in his book, “Report from the Holocaust: The Making of an AIDS Activist”: “In those instances where children do have sex with their homosexual elders, be they teachers or anyone else, I submit that often, very often, the child desires the activity, and perhaps even solicits it.”
    In a study of advertisements in the influential homosexual newspaper, The Advocate, Reisman found ads for a “Penetrable Boy Doll … available in three provocative positions. She also found that the number of erotic boy images in each issue of The Advocate averaged 14.} These NAMBLA articles cast a negative light on all homosexuals. It is unfair to have a bunch of sickos espousing sick views in a homosexual magazine as if they speak for the whole gay community. That was my point–not hatred.
    Good night–sorry I ruffled your feathers.

    Comment by Kat — September 30, 2006 @ 12:24 am - September 30, 2006

  69. Are you claiming that a gay man could never, by definition, be a pedophile?

    Nope.

    It is entirely possible for a person to be a gay pedophile. But simply because a person is a pedophile doesn’t necessarily mean that they are gay OR straight. For pedophilia, the age is more the thing than anything else; there are male pedophiles, for instance, who have heterosexual relationships with women, but prefer boys.

    In short, pedophilia is its own breed of cat, and needs to be considered accordingly; As I’ve previously blogged, mingling it with homosexuality makes no more sense than with heterosexuality.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 30, 2006 @ 12:34 am - September 30, 2006

  70. Ugh, this story is just bad. As a gay Democrat, I in no way feel good about this happening. This story will be played in the mainstream media against our community and just further entrench the perception that gay men are pedophiles, even without Mark Foley having publicly stated he is gay.

    I do not like the gloating here by liberal commenters, using this to slam the GOP. For that is not how it’s going to be played in the MSM. They will use it to slam the gay community, not the GOP.

    Comment by Chase — September 30, 2006 @ 12:42 am - September 30, 2006

  71. Maybe St. Petersburg Times just thought it was icky — or maybe they were waiting for more evidence to back up the story.

    Or maybe there were trying to hurt the GOP in the election.

    Who knows?

    Comment by Bla — September 30, 2006 @ 12:52 am - September 30, 2006

  72. A gay Republican… with an oxymoron like that no wonder they guy is a creepy child molesting hypocritical freak.

    Like a gay Republican is going to be a well adjusted person… oh yeah.

    Probably a self-loather too.

    I’ve noticed that black Republicans can be pretty weird also.

    Comment by David — September 30, 2006 @ 1:21 am - September 30, 2006

  73. -For the reading-impaired, that means the GOP leaders didn’t know of any explicit messages because Foley lied to them. The parents apparently did not know of any such messages, nor did the boy apparently mention any.-

    Rodney Alexander said he told the GOP leadership 10 or 11 months ago, but didn’t they say they only found out a few days ago?

    Comment by Carl — September 30, 2006 @ 1:40 am - September 30, 2006

  74. #4

    *Still – if Foley was a stalker and used AOL to IM a lot of boys in the chat room, then it is excusable.

    Regards,
    Peter H. ”

    Lol, another deeply repressed “gay Republcan”
    Classic

    Comment by David — September 30, 2006 @ 1:40 am - September 30, 2006

  75. #70 by Chase

    “This story will be played in the mainstream media against our community”

    Chase, get a clue pal, this story will be used by the Republican BASE as “proof” that gay men are pedophiles.

    Democrats are far more likely to understand that this is a aberration in the human pool, just as a straight person can be a pedophile.

    I other words, Democrats generally can understand that these freaks are not something that is limited to the gay community.

    To Republicans, it’s just biblical conformation of homo sin pal.

    Comment by David — September 30, 2006 @ 1:54 am - September 30, 2006

  76. FOX NEWS “Should Age of Consent be Lowered?”

    Comment by David — September 30, 2006 @ 2:02 am - September 30, 2006

  77. David, Rep. Foley was supportive of gay rights. He twice voted against the constititutional amendment to ban gay marriage and was co-sponsor to most every gay rights bill introduced in Congress. He was not an enemy to our community.

    Comment by Chase — September 30, 2006 @ 2:13 am - September 30, 2006

  78. #74: learn to read, please.

    I quote :

    #4 – Mea culpa. My next-to-last sentence should have said “INexcusable.”

    If any of you think I would ever condone any kind of NAMBLA-type activity for anyone, you are wrong. There is a reason why it is considered an age of consent.

    And Chase, you seem to be under the mistaken impression that David is rational. You should realize by now that the vast majority of gay Democrats base whether or not a person is pro- or anti-gay on political affiliation. That’s why a Foley is attacked as antigay, but Democrats who support state and Federal amendments stripping gays of rights are called “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 30, 2006 @ 2:23 am - September 30, 2006

  79. “He twice voted against the constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage”

    A constitutional amendment introduced by Democrats?

    “…co-sponsor to most every gay rights bill introduced in Congress”

    Gay rights bills introduced by Republicans?

    Sorry to break it to you, but now he’s the poster child for the Republican base validating the “evils” the gay man and the danger of allowing homosexuals to be near children.

    No offence buddy, but you are SERIOUSLY confused.

    Comment by David — September 30, 2006 @ 2:24 am - September 30, 2006

  80. LOL….let me remind you of what you gay Democrats consider to be “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”, David:

    People who support state constitutional amendments stripping gays of rights

    People who support the FMA

    People who “share values” with antigay bigots like Pat Robertson

    And what do Democrat lapdogs like you do? Shovel tens of millions of dollars to them and do whatever they say.

    Thanks for demonstrating your hypocrisy.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 30, 2006 @ 2:32 am - September 30, 2006

  81. Fwiw, I could not be a more straight male.

    I’ve worked with gay men and have never had a problem with them.

    I’m just pissed how Republicans treat people that are different as second (or lower) citizens in order to fire up their redneck Christian base.

    Btw, being born a straight male, I can appreciate that being gay is no way a choice.

    Comment by David — September 30, 2006 @ 2:34 am - September 30, 2006

  82. #10
    I wonder how the media would treat this if he were a dem…

    Are you kidding? This would be a resume enhancer. The libs would circle the wagons and would do whatever possible to excuse it.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 30, 2006 @ 2:37 am - September 30, 2006

  83. #80 from your link North Dallas Thirty

    People who “share values” with antigay bigots like Pat Robertson

    “He (Dean) said, “I’m a Democrat because of my values. My values include inclusiveness — they include not leaving more debt to our kids than we have ourselves. My values including wanting our values to drive our public policies. My values include not having kids going to bed hungry at night. Now those are values that I bet I share with the vast majority of evangelicals.”

    Sound ok to me.

    You got a problem with that quote pal?

    Comment by David — September 30, 2006 @ 2:42 am - September 30, 2006

  84. Like a gay Republican is going to be a well adjusted person… oh yeah.

    Probably a self-loather too.

    Actually, the gay Republicans I know are perfectly happy. Alternatively liberals, gay or straight, choose to wallow in victimhood, anger, rage, misery, hate etc. not to mention (apparently) ignorance. Now who’s “well adjusted”?

    I’ve noticed that black Republicans can be pretty weird also.

    What’s wrong? Did one tell you to clean your own damn house? They do tend to avoid stepping & fetching for you, don’t they? Nor are they content to live as a vicitm or have a dependency on liberals and Uncle Sugar.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 30, 2006 @ 2:44 am - September 30, 2006

  85. You got a problem with that quote pal?

    What, did you miss this?

    He added, “The Democratic Party platform from 2004 says that marriage is between a man and a woman. That’s what it says.

    And as for “sharing values”, Pat Robertson, for all his bigotry, has given literally millions of dollars to help in the fight against hunger and poverty.

    Howard Dean claims he wants to help hungry children, but then advocates raising taxes on their parents, punishing the companies that give their parents jobs, and screaming about how the rich are evil while he and his fellow millionaire and billionaire Democrats hide their income in tax shelters so THEY don’t have to pay for their social welfare programs.

    As soon as Dean directs his rhetoric against rich Democrats like himself and demand that they give up the lion’s share of their wealth to help the poor, then he might approach being less of a hypocrite.

    I’m just pissed how Republicans treat people that are different as second (or lower) citizens in order to fire up their redneck Christian base.

    But you clap and cheer when Democrats do it, as I pointed out. Indeed, you tried to spin Howard Dean’s public admission that he considers gays second-class citizens because of his religious beliefs as being pro-gay and gay-supportive.

    You’re still an antigay bigot, David. You see gays as a population to be manipulated for your political ends, and you have no qualms whatsoever about treating us like dirt if it will get Democrats elected. That’s why you mock gays like myself, who point out what lying hypocrites you are, as being “self-loathing” — ironic, when your idea of a good gay is akin to a white plantation owner’s attitude towards a house slave.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 30, 2006 @ 3:04 am - September 30, 2006

  86. The only thing that matters here is how universally bad it is for all gay men. This Foley jackass has provided more ammunition for those opposed to homosexuality on the grounds that gay men prey on children. It doesn’t matter if this idiot is a Republican or a Democrat, conservative or liberal, he’s made it worse for all of us and that should be the focus of your outrage. It will take quite a bit of effort to undue the damage that this fool has wrought.

    Comment by DanielFTL — September 30, 2006 @ 3:14 am - September 30, 2006

  87. Howard Dean claims he wants to help hungry children, but then advocates raising taxes on their parents, punishing the companies that give their parents jobs, and screaming about how the rich are evil while he and his fellow millionaire and billionaire Democrats hide their income in tax shelters so THEY don’t have to pay for their social welfare programs.

    Just imagine if Soros would use his money for good instead of wasting it on these lame-brained bastards calling themselves “democrats”. He couldn’t buy the White House in 2004 and he won’t be able to buy Congress in 2006.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 30, 2006 @ 4:31 am - September 30, 2006

  88. No offence buddy, but you are SERIOUSLY confused.

    David, you are attacking me and I am a Democrat. LOL

    As someone who is in fact gay, I think it is a good thing, a very good thing, when we can get Republicans to vote on our side in terms of supporting gay rights. Of course, it is a double edged sword when a Republican in Congress, like Rep. Foley, is gay supportive. For while he supports our legislation, he simultaneously votes for party leaders, like Senator Frist and Speaker Hassert, who will under no circumstances EVER bring up a gay rights bill for a floor vote.

    Likewise, it is important to point out that during the past 10 years, the Republican leadership in Congress has never once allowed a stand alone gay rights bill to come up for a vote. While the House has passed expansion of the federal hate crimes statute on a couple of occasions as an amendment to an unrelated bill, when said bill is then reconciled in committee with the Senate version, that provision is taken out by the GOP leadership.

    So yes, as long as the leadership in Congress remains openly hostile to gay rights, it doesn’t matter how many Congressmen are gay supportive. And yes, as they are the ones in control right now, the blame for that falls squarely upon the shoulders of the Republicans.

    However, I do support my fellow gay Americans in their effort to effect change within the Republican Party. But while they struggle with that, in the meantime, i’ll continue to vote for the Democrats, as Democratic leadership in the House and Senate remains our best possible option towards getting our bills passed.

    Comment by Chase — September 30, 2006 @ 5:29 am - September 30, 2006

  89. Actually, it’s more of a catch 22 than a double edged sword. I think I used the wrong metaphor. =)

    Comment by Chase — September 30, 2006 @ 5:34 am - September 30, 2006

  90. You know, a lot of perfectly innocent stuff sounds creepy to a 16 year old kid. Let’s wait until the emails come out. If they’re truly creepy we’ll know then.

    I’m just saying is all. Even the appearance of impropriety is enough to take down a guy like this, and he’s probably right to resign, but who knows if what the kid thinks he meant was what he really meant.

    But it also accurs to me that there’s some really odd people out there. I mean, really. So who knows.

    Comment by maddad — September 30, 2006 @ 8:44 am - September 30, 2006

  91. No Loss…

    Rep. Foley has resigned from Congress. Good. It seems he’s a scumbag. As Gaypatriot correctly points out First ? a 16-year old!?!? I just don?t get that!!! Second ? Think a long, long time before you put stuff in email…….

    Trackback by The Coalition of the Swilling — September 30, 2006 @ 8:49 am - September 30, 2006

  92. I find it odd that so many right-wingers on this board are defending sexually harassing a 16 years old.

    I also find it odd that someone who claims to be a “patriot” would defend any Republican. The GOP hates everything America stands for.

    Defending child molesters, or at least distracting from child molesters, is getting more common as GOP pedophilia is coming to light. Let’s hope that Republicans get out of their relexive spin mode and start to think rationally and humanely on this.

    http://www.armchairsubversive.com/

    Comment by libhomo — September 30, 2006 @ 9:18 am - September 30, 2006

  93. I know that Mighty Righties are often impervious to and ignorant of facts, but:

    (i) Regarding Gerry Studds’s case in 1983, that was part of a bi-partisan House Ethics Committee effort to get rid of Representative Dan Crane (Republican, IL) who had pleaded no contest to a charge of that he had sex with an underage female page in 1980. Crane was subsequently voted out of office.

    Studds’s case involved a claim that he had had improper relations with a seventeen year old male page in 1973. I’ll quote Wikipedia, which goes into a bit of detail:

    Studds is remembered chiefly for his role in the Congressional page sex scandal in 1983, when he and Representative Dan Crane were censured by the House of Representatives for separate sexual relationships with a minor – in Studds’s case, a 1973 relationship with a 17-year-old male congressional page.

    During the course of the House Ethics Committee’s investigation, Studds publicly acknowledged his homosexuality, a disclosure that, according to a Washington Post article, “apparently was not news to many of his constituents.” Studds stated in an address to the House, “It is not a simple task for any of us to meet adequately the obligations of either public or private life, let alone both, but these challenges are made substantially more complex when one is, as I am, both an elected public official and gay.”

    As the House read their censure of him, Studds turned his back and ignored them. Later, at a press conference with the former page standing beside him, the two stated that what had happened between them was nobody’s business but their own.

    It strikes me that, if the former page, then in his late 20s, had stood with Studds and expressed the belief that what happened between them was nobody’s business but their own, that should be the end of it. Unlike Crane, Studds was never charged with having engaged in any illegal activity. Moreover, Studds was consistently re-elected from a fairly conservative district in MA. Why? Because he served his district’s interests quite well–the district has an extensive Portuguese-American fishing industry and he served on the House fisheries committee.

    Regarding Barney Fag–er, Frank–he was not reprimanded for allowing his former roommate, Steve Gobie, to run a prostitution ring out of his DC townhouse. The House Ethics Committee rejected Gobie’s claim that he had used Frank’s Washington apartment for prostitution with the Congressman’s knowledge.. The only thing that the House Ethics Committee was able to find on Barney was The committee asked the House to scold Frank for fixing parking tickets that Gobie had picked up while driving the Congressman’s car, and for using his official stationery to intercede with Gobie’s probation officers. (same link)

    BTW, I live in Barney’s district and can attest to the fact that he can have a lifetime tenure here as long as he wants. Republicans have put up nothing more than token opposition to him. Barney will win Nov. 7, and the Republicans know it. It would be nice if Ted Kennedy or John Kerry would get out of the way in the Senate–if they did, Barney could very well be the first openly gay person elected to the US Senate.

    Returning to the theme. Facts. It would be nice if you Mighty Righties actually paid attention to them, instead of just blo(g)viating.

    Comment by raj — September 30, 2006 @ 9:33 am - September 30, 2006

  94. #68 Kat — September 30, 2006 @ 12:24 am – September 30, 2006

    Dear, you might really want to consider citing to source. The source for your anti-gay diatribe was WorldNutDaily. (Isn’t google wonderful? Just type in your initial sentence and it pops right up.)

    In addition, you might want to consider the reliability of the information. Some of us know who “Dr.” Judith A. Reisman, who was cited in your source, really is. She really does hold a doctorate–in communications. Her initial claim to fame was as a song-writer for the Captain Kangaroo television show. Later, she was a contractor on the anti-pornography commission started by St. Ronald, he of Reagan’s attorney general Ed Meese, where she earned oodles of dollars doing virtually nothing. Subsequently, Reisman wrote a diatribe against the Kinsey Institute, falsely claiming that Alfred Kinsey had employed pedophiles in his research. After the KI denied her charge, she filed suit against the KI for libel. Shortly after the suit was filed in the early 1990s, her lawyer withdrew from the suit, and, after the court dismissed the suit with prejudice as being completely frivolous, she was ordered to pay the KI US$50,000 in attorneys fees, an amount that she has consistently refused to pay.

    I could go on, but it is clear that Reisman has no credibility whatsoever.

    Comment by raj — September 30, 2006 @ 9:56 am - September 30, 2006

  95. The lesson here is that while the Republicans clean house, the Dems wallow in their own dirt – and are proud of it.

    The issue isn’t whether he is guilty or innocent, until the case is cleared there can be no meaningful debate over issues of the job at hand. For that reason alone he should step aside. Makes no difference if that was the actual reson he resigned, the end result is the same.

    Nixon resigned – Clinton was impeached.
    Cunningham resigned – Trafficant was convicted in office.

    As for gay rights legislation, Dems had 40 years of congressional control to pass any legislation they wished for with a simple majority – and boy, did they exercise that priveledge. If it wasn’t important to dems then, why should it be so important to the republicans now? Why should it fall to the republicans to cater to a minority demographic that votes overwhelmingly with the opposition? Get real.

    Comment by Dark Jethro — September 30, 2006 @ 9:57 am - September 30, 2006

  96. Raj–are those articles in those magazines or not–yes or no? Do you support their point of view and why do you allow such trash and then get into a hissy fit because someone notices. Forget Reisman–just deal with the authors of the articles–true or not? I don’t care about the doctor’s credibility. I care about the message in the articles. If those are not really written in those magazines or books, I’m glad and I apologize. The souce I’d like you to address is not WND but the ‘ Journal of Homosexuality’, “Guide”and “Report from the Holocaust: The Making of an AIDS Activist”. Do they or do they not advocate sex with kids? That is my question. I’m not anti-gay, just anti-pedophile. My argument is not with gays, but lowlife who target kids…like Foley.

    Comment by Kat — September 30, 2006 @ 10:10 am - September 30, 2006

  97. I think Chase makes a good point, in the end this probably will perpetuate the perception that gay men are all predators out to recruit more gays. It is an unfair charge, but it doesn’t help when people like Foley keep loading the bullets in the gun.

    Raj-I have a problem-when it comes to minors, especially minors who are working in a subordinate position to the big guys in charge, that consent doesn’t really matter, even if it is 10 years later. But your defense sort of plays right into the whole “dems do it, and celebrate and defend it” argument.

    Adults should know better. There isn’t a defense, and consent isn’t a defense for me.

    If I sent my 16 year old off to DC as a page, I would be highly pissed off if a congressman wrote explicit emails or had a sexual relationship with them-even if my kid walked naked through their office and asked them for it. A congressman should know better period.

    As for the whole leadership knew, I was under the impresssion that the emails weren’t that explicit, but the IM’s certainly are pretty bad, but the IM’s didn’t come out until recently and several of the IM’s were from other pages, which pretty much does give me the predator feel to Foley, but it doesn’t sound like all the facts were known until recently.

    Also, while parents can’t give consent for sex for underage kids, they can deny consent for the police to interview their minor children.

    Either way I think the man needed to resign, and if the facts are true, and they have evidence to prosecute for a crime, it should be done.

    Comment by just me — September 30, 2006 @ 10:39 am - September 30, 2006

  98. I have a couple of “food for thought” ideas:

    1) Is someone who is 17 turning 18 really that innocent? “Oh, I’m 17 and turning 18 in 3 weeks, so until I’m 18 I’m not able to make the decision of having sex appropriately”.

    2) What kind of individual would copy/paste/save their IM conversations except for “sting” type operations, extortion or blackmail?

    3) Why did these individuals engage in these conversations? Somehow a foundation of acceptance of this behavior became the norm so both parties participated beyond the “office” realtionship. Now their offended? Now it’s an issue?

    4) If this were an FBI sting operation, I have no problem with it, but the timing, manner and behavior or revealing it all is truly suspect.

    5) I find the behavior of adults having sex with children absolutely reprehensible(sp)and they need to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law – NO ARGUEMENT from me there.

    As a nation we need to re-evaluate the age of consent. We think kids are okay to make the decision to drive a 3000lb piece of metal, sometimes when intoxicated, at age 16 but they couldn’t possibly have the ability to decide if they want to engage in sexual behavior. “Sex has life long consequences.” Yeah, well so does driving drunk and killing yourself or others, it’s a fallacious argument.

    I don’t condone Foley’s behavior because he’s married and has children. I don’t care if he’s changed his mind and wants to be with men, who cares, but leave the other relationship, be responsible, be accountable, and move on, don’t put your family through this garbage.

    To engage with men/women who are under the age of 18 at this point in our evolution has huge consequences, he should’ve known better, but to have the press, Washington and the public become self-righteous about this case is nothing more than absurd.

    People should be concerned about his behavior; people should be suspect of this revelation and the manner in which it was brought to the press.

    BTW – I found it just as absurd that a woman would save a dress that had an ejaculation stain on it hanging in her closet. Clinton’s behavior was abhorant, no doubt, but what the hell was she thinking? Ick!

    Comment by Scooter — September 30, 2006 @ 11:12 am - September 30, 2006

  99. I should have mentioned that I think the age difference is clearly not appropriate, but we don’t have laws that say 18 year olds can’t marry/date/engage sexually with 50 year olds. Certainly it’s another red flag. What could a 50 year old possibly have in common with someone who is 16, 18, 25, etc.

    I saw one post that mentioned a 16 year old. While I agree that it’s “illegal”, it still should be debated about the age of sexual consent, again my point is made about giving a teen a DL and putting them behind the wheel of a vehicle where they could kill themselves or others by not being responsible. Sex is the same issue, being responsible or not being responsible.

    Comment by Scooter — September 30, 2006 @ 11:17 am - September 30, 2006

  100. “If I sent my 16 year old off to DC as a page, I would be highly pissed off if a congressman wrote explicit emails or had a sexual relationship with them-even if my kid walked naked through their office and asked them for it. A congressman should know better period.”

    This analogy is ridiculous! You kid has a responsibility to behave in a manner that is appropriate and be accountable for that behavior. The fact that your kid doesn’t respond appropriately by stating it as inappropriate and then ENGAGES in the conversation, explicitly, through IM, doesn’t bring a teflon deflection to the kid.

    I agree that the adult should have behaved appropriately, as well, both parties are responsible and accountable, I don’t care what their age is or their position.

    This notion of “power position” is garbage. Inappropriate behavior is inappropriate behavior. If a teen is afraid to approach his/her parent to discuss a situation such as this presenting itself, you think the problem is just the adult enticing the teen? How about the parents not instilling in their kid the freedom to talk about issues to them when they arise?

    Children, 5, 8, 10, 12, 15 are certainly victims but one should question a child engaging in sexual behavior with an adult not just in terms of the adult(reprehensilbe behavior)and the child(fear, shame, isolation, etc.).

    I worked as a counselor for 7 years with all types and I can tell you that “mind frames” get created and are acted on for a variety of reasons, logical or not, that need our attention as a society as to what WE are creating by our own actions, media, television, movies, etc.can be addressed.

    Comment by Scooter — September 30, 2006 @ 11:32 am - September 30, 2006

  101. Scooter I think you have to draw the line somewhere, and since 18 is considered “legal” seems a pretty clear place to draw it. But if we changed it to 17 1/2 then you could hear well is there any difference between a 17 and 4 month old than a 17 1/2?

    Also, there is the matter of position. Even if the pages were over 18, I would have issues with congressmembers exchanging sexually explicit emails and IM’s or engaging in sexual behavior. Also, in some places this age is 16 or they have a romeo and juliet type law-where it isn’t a crime unless there is more than X number of years between the two individuals (ie 15 and 17 year old-not crime, 15 and 20 year old-crime).

    Although that is my big question in all this-had Foley gone beyone the creepy/explicit emails and actually done anything physical.

    As for saving of IM’s and Emails-I know I don’t save anything. Maybe teens do, or maybe they saved them to share with their friends-a sort of “look at what this 50 year old congressman wrote” kind of stuff.

    Comment by just me — September 30, 2006 @ 11:38 am - September 30, 2006

  102. Scooter my point isn’t that a minor has no responsiblity, but in these matters, yes the adult in charge is expected to be the adult in charge, and yes I hold them to a higher standard than I do a teenager.

    You sound like one of those people who think all the teachers having sex with their students is acceptable too.

    Sorry, but you won’t find me joining that bandwagon-I think adults need to be adults, and that means you don’t have sex with minors.

    If you are sexually attracted to them, you wait until they are adults and legal. And you certainly don’t send explicit emails and IM’s to them in the mean time. Although I do wonder what a 50 year old person finds attractive in 16 year olds-they still seem too much like kids to me.

    Comment by just me — September 30, 2006 @ 11:47 am - September 30, 2006

  103. Netting it out.
    1. Foley is into the 16-to-20 set. Creepy. Criminal at the lower end.
    2. Some lib-Dem commentors connect that with ‘being gay’ – ugh, WHY???? (Question: could it be their into 16-to-20 guys? we seeing another double standard?)
    3. Foley even though a scumbag, does something right by resigning.
    4. Dems in sex scandals don’t usually resign. (McGreevey doesn’t count – he had other corruption charges.) Why?

    Comment by notimportant — September 30, 2006 @ 11:57 am - September 30, 2006

  104. I know someone who had sex (what exactly, I don’t know) with an adult when he was 12. Raj, guess what he said. Guess.

    “It strikes me that, if the former page, then in his late 20s, had stood with Studds and expressed the belief that what happened between them was nobody’s business but their own, that should be the end of it.”

    He, *and* the other boys involved, when one of the boys involved told his parents and the adult involved got in trouble, were primarly angry at the boy who told his folks. IN THEIR MINDS they had participated of their own choice. The hardest thing to do, even when the boy was 12 when it happened, was to convince the adult that what happened when he was 12 was abuse. None of the other boys came forward. They didn’t tell their parents. The same thing is true of girls who are abused.

    So a 17 year old, when he was 20, stands up and says it was consensual. So what? Is *anyone* going to stand up and say that they were an idiot, a dupe, that they let themselves get manipulated by an older man into something that they would rather not have done? No, raj. They won’t. A 12 year old won’t even do that. It’s humiliating. It’s horrible, to say you were a victim. To publically say you were weak and not emotionally able to defend yourself.

    Now… 17… maybe a 17 year old has discovered he really prefers men and maybe he really went into a sexual relationship willingly… but there is no way to know. All I know, is whatever really happened, the young man stood up and said exactly what any young man would say.

    Would it be okay if the 17 year old was a girl?

    Why is homosexuality an excuse for a middle aged man having sex with a teenager?

    Comment by Synova — September 30, 2006 @ 12:14 pm - September 30, 2006

  105. [Comment deleted.   This commenter has been repeatedly banned under his other names.  He will continue to be banned.]

    Comment by Anonymous — September 30, 2006 @ 12:54 pm - September 30, 2006

  106. I’d be inclined to stick up for this guy. but considering how non repubs are treated around here, I dobt i will be doing so.

    Comment by lester — September 30, 2006 @ 2:13 pm - September 30, 2006

  107. So what? Is *anyone* going to stand up and say that they were an idiot, a dupe, that they let themselves get manipulated by an older man into something that they would rather not have done? No, raj. They won’t. A 12 year old won’t even do that. It’s humiliating. It’s horrible, to say you were a victim. To publically say you were weak and not emotionally able to defend yourself.

    I think this is a good point. Child predators in general do not grab a kid and force them into sex. They cajole them, give them attention, say they love them etc and manipulate the kids into having sex with them-the kids on some level probably do feel that it is consent, but is it really?

    I do wonder if it is harder to be a boy molested by an adult male and come forward with the details, given the homosexual nature of the abuse, and the view of homosexuality in the culture. Not sure about the answer, but part of me thinks this would be the case.

    Comment by just me — September 30, 2006 @ 3:42 pm - September 30, 2006

  108. “Dems in sex scandals don’t usually resign”

    This is not a sex scandle.
    Its not compareable to a roommate’s actions nor is it compareble to infedelity.
    Sex with minors (0-18) is only one thing:
    Rape.

    The sooner the gay community communicates this message and condem Foley, the quicker we can get in front of the gays=pediphiles bullshit

    Comment by keogh — September 30, 2006 @ 3:46 pm - September 30, 2006

  109. Keogh I do have a question-has Foley actually been accused of having sex with the Page involved or other Pages?

    Not that sexually explicit IM’s with minors is defensible and I think that alone is reason for resignation, but they are two different actions.

    Comment by just me — September 30, 2006 @ 4:36 pm - September 30, 2006

  110. Ugh!! Here is the scenario I was hoping for after January 2007: Rep. Kolbe has retired & now Rep. Foley comes out of the closet voluntarily & there still is 1 openly gay Republican in the House. Well, it won’t turn out that way. Mr. Foley will now have no choice but to come out & under one of the worst circumstances imaginable.
    As for you Kat, allow me to update you on NAMBLA & gay rights. NAMBLA hasn’t marched in a pride parade for about 11 years now & at least at Calamus bookstore in Boston they haven’t stocked the NAMBLA Bulletin for years. I & all other gay men I know deplore that group of cockroaches. So try better than resurrecting 10-year old quotes to paint all gays with the NAMBLA brush.

    Comment by Jimbo — September 30, 2006 @ 4:48 pm - September 30, 2006

  111. [...] GayPatriot bemoans the treatment that Mark Foley is getting when you consider Barney Frank’s apparently sordid history. (Read about Mark Gobie here and then again here.) I hate to point out of the obvious, but there is a slight difference between Franks association with an adult consenting male and Foley’s apparent association with an underage boy. [...]

    Pingback by Sam Wilkinson is… Smash! Sam Smash! » GayPatriot on Foley Resignation — September 30, 2006 @ 5:29 pm - September 30, 2006

  112. Sex with minors (0-18) is only one thing:
    Rape.

    I love watching the Dems contradict themselves.

    Notice how puppet IanRaj and RajIan try to defend Studds by saying that underage minors can consent to sex — but then puppet Keogh insists that sex with anyone under 18 is rape.

    In short, Dems are claiming that Foley’s emails constituted rape, but that Studd’s sex with a minor wasn’t.

    In short, no matter what gay Democrats and liberals try to whine, their actions make it obvious that they condone sex with minors and claim that minors can consent to sex.

    Next up, the inane stylings of DanielFTL:

    The only thing that matters here is how universally bad it is for all gay men. This Foley jackass has provided more ammunition for those opposed to homosexuality on the grounds that gay men prey on children.

    Why?

    Foley has never once said that he is gay — or, like gay liberal hero Jim McGreevey, claimed that being gay justifies his bad behavior.

    The supreme irony here is that, if morons like DanielFTL and his fellow liberals and Democrats weren’t running around claiming that Foley is gay, there would be no evidence that he is, and it wouldn’t even be an issue.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 30, 2006 @ 5:45 pm - September 30, 2006

  113. So try better than resurrecting 10-year old quotes to paint all gays with the NAMBLA brush.

    I can fix that for her — RajIan’s quote above:

    It strikes me that, if the former page, then in his late 20s, had stood with Studds and expressed the belief that what happened between them was nobody’s business but their own, that should be the end of it.

    In short, RajIan, who claims to be gay and claims to be a prominent gay whose opinions are mainstream in the gay community, says that minors can consent to sex and that it’s no one else’s business — nor is it criminal.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 30, 2006 @ 5:53 pm - September 30, 2006

  114. Q. Why doersn’t Mark Foley use bookmarks?

    A. He bends over the pages!

    Comment by Well? — September 30, 2006 @ 6:33 pm - September 30, 2006

  115. I do agree that we need to draw a line with regard to consent, but to make the analogy from “17 ½ to 4 months old” is like saying, “if we let gays marry then we’ll end up having to let people marry goats”. Yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying! What a stupid analogy. Nowhere did I make this comparison. If you had, in fact, read my postings you would see that I find sex with children reprehensible. But you are being disingenuous if you don’t recognize that teens, probably including yourself at some point, are more sexually active as time has gone by over the decades, at an early age.

    I also agree that Foley’s behavior is creepy, I did state how inappropriate it was based on his age alone. Having sex between teachers and students is NOT appropriate, but to regard it as this “victim” type of behavior is stupid. Coercive sexual behavior is wrong no matter how old someone is, consensual sex is a whole different thing. Children who are very young are coerced into sex, typically when a child says that he/she said it was “okay” for Uncle Bob to touch him/her it’s usually to protect him and based in fear. Get a grip. Educate yourself regarding this issue before you start spewing your stupidity.

    Foley may not be gay. Just because he has sex with a man doesn’t mean he’s gay. I know gay people like this statement because they think it means something to them, but it doesn’t. Being gay is about a lot more than just sex. It would be wise to stop associating being Gay as just being about sex – you wonder why the population has issue with gay people, this thought process is one of ‘em.

    Comment by Scooter — September 30, 2006 @ 6:47 pm - September 30, 2006

  116. BTW – NAMBLA is a disgusting organization that should be investigated and folks involved should be arrested and prosecuted.

    Comment by Scooter — September 30, 2006 @ 6:48 pm - September 30, 2006

  117. I do find it interesting that none of the posts are questioning the guy(s) that have presented this information with regard to their motives and behavior. These situations are always so one-sided; it really shows the inability of people to understand behavior and create viable solutions, you can only do that if you are examining both sides of the story.

    Comment by Scooter — September 30, 2006 @ 6:52 pm - September 30, 2006

  118. #113 – that joke is hilarious! LOL! :)

    Comment by Scooter — September 30, 2006 @ 6:52 pm - September 30, 2006

  119. That’s the difference between DC and Hollywood, I guess. Mark Foley sends lewd IM’s to a 16 yr old page, and his career is over. Victor Silva rapes a sixth-grader, and it’s a career enhancement.

    Comment by Nobody — September 30, 2006 @ 6:53 pm - September 30, 2006

  120. 117 – agreed! Good point.

    Comment by Scooter — September 30, 2006 @ 6:54 pm - September 30, 2006

  121. #111, NDT, unfortunately in the general public, the moment a man expresses a sexual interest in another male, whatever his age, the assumption is that he is homosexual.
    Even though Pedophiles or Pederests are in a catagory unto themselves, they aren’t perceived that way.
    McKreevy and Foley have done great damage with their personal shananigans to the Gay world.

    Comment by Leah — September 30, 2006 @ 7:09 pm - September 30, 2006

  122. I also agree that Foley’s behavior is creepy, I did state how inappropriate it was based on his age alone. Having sex between teachers and students is NOT appropriate, but to regard it as this “victim” type of behavior is stupid. Coercive sexual behavior is wrong no matter how old someone is, consensual sex is a whole different thing.

    We’ll just have to disagree here then, because I think this kind of action is criminal. Mostly when it comes to consent I lean towards Romeo and Juliet type laws where consenting teens within a certain number of years actions aren’t criminal, but a 50 year old doesn’t fall within that guideline.

    I also think it is wrong, when one person is in a position of power. Not neccessarily criminal, but absolutely unethical.

    Children who are very young are coerced into sex, typically when a child says that he/she said it was “okay” for Uncle Bob to touch him/her it’s usually to protect him and based in fear. Get a grip. Educate yourself regarding this issue before you start spewing your stupidity.

    Very young children aren’t the only kids suseptible to coersion. Teenagers can be just as suseptible. When I worked juvenile probation, we had a kid on our caseload who was coerced into a relationship with an adult man (not a family member), and cooperated for about a year, but at some point decided to tell his parents. He was 13 at the time.

    Comment by just me — September 30, 2006 @ 8:08 pm - September 30, 2006

  123. Adults can be manipulated and coerced and seduced as much as children can, we just have to say that at some point it’s not appropriate to limit someone elses behavior or keep them from making mistakes. Part of the reason that so many people view relationships between generations as wrong is that they know just how easy it is to manipulate an 18, 19, 20 year old. Technically they’re adults, but they are at a severe disadvantage with an older person. The age difference itself isn’t proof that the older person is a scum bucket, but the couple is going to have an uphill battle when it comes to other people’s opinions.

    In situations where there is a vast disparity of power and influence it is considered unethical to have any sort of sexual relationship even if both people are consenting and legal… patient/doctor, patient/therapist, student/teacher… those can mean losing licenses. Senator/page, president/intern… anyone in the same military chain of command… the power disparity means that “consensual” could well not be “consensual.” If someone has power over you, can fire you from your job, keep you from getting hired… “consensual” means very little.

    Comment by Synova — September 30, 2006 @ 8:48 pm - September 30, 2006

  124. #111: “that minors can consent to sex”

    A minor is generally considered to be someone under the age of 18. Many jurisdictions have an age of consent of 16 or even less. Are you claiming those jurisdictions are wrong to set an age less than 18? The age of consent varies widely. Like a typical Dobson theocrat, you “know” what’s best for everyone else and want to ram your “morality” down everyone else’s throat.

    “Foley has never once said that he is gay”

    He just shows up at gay functions with his male partner or at least he did until he tried to go back into the closet when he was running for the Senate in 2004. http://tinyurl.com/8e6vq

    Comment by Ian — September 30, 2006 @ 9:01 pm - September 30, 2006

  125. Synova and just me — Unfortunately, there are a large number of gays ready to shriek “oppression” at any suggestion that they curb their libido, or that any form of sexual expression is inappropriate.

    Comment by Nobody — September 30, 2006 @ 9:05 pm - September 30, 2006

  126. And ian proves my point before I even make it.

    Comment by Nobody — September 30, 2006 @ 9:06 pm - September 30, 2006

  127. The story has moved on from Foley to the GOP House leadership i.e. what did they know and when did they know it. None of them are getting their stories straight and consistent but it’s clear they knew there was a problem for months and pretty much ignored it. That they knew there was a problem is evidenced by the fact that they kept the one Dem on the Page Board in the dark about the matter. This story now has legs and the GOP House leaders appear on the verge of meltdown over their attempted coverup and their lack of action to protect other pages. Time for more popcorn! Dems everywhere have to hammer home that every Republican Congressman has supported this corrupt gang and will continue to do so if re-elected. Vote Republican and support the child predator protection party.

    Continuing countdown to Speaker Pelosi!

    Comment by Ian — September 30, 2006 @ 9:15 pm - September 30, 2006

  128. #124: “ian proves my point before I even make it.”

    What point is that? Are you denying that the age of consent varies? Are you taking issue with them? Or are you a theocrat like NDobsonT who presumes to decide what’s moral and what isn’t?

    Comment by Ian — September 30, 2006 @ 9:19 pm - September 30, 2006

  129. A minor is generally considered to be someone under the age of 18. Many jurisdictions have an age of consent of 16 or even less. Are you claiming those jurisdictions are wrong to set an age less than 18?

    I think 16 and 50 is wrong. I don’t want my 16 year old engaging in sexual acts with a 50 year old. So if the consent age is just a flat 16, yeah I would say those jurisdictions are wrong, just like some people think having an age of consent at 18 is wrong, or people don’t like statutory rape type laws where 18 year olds turn in to criminals for consensual sex with their 16 year old girlfriend/boyfriend. The fact that it varies does indicate there is disagreement, but most states are in the general same ballpark with regards to consent laws.

    I personally like Romeo and Juliet type laws, where sexual acts between a minor and very close in age adult aren’t considered criminal acts (ie 16 year old and 18 year old and consensual is legal, but 16 year old and 50 year old consensual=crime). And a lot of the states with 16 as an age of consent also include a Romeo and Juliet type age disparity as part of their laws.

    Comment by just me — September 30, 2006 @ 9:42 pm - September 30, 2006

  130. 1. I have a problem with the fact that this is a man of authority propositioning his subordinate. I’d have a problem whether it was a Dem or Repub, a boss or a doctor with his patient. The age gap makes me uneasy but that’s not the issue. It’s the unequality in the power dynamic that really bothers me.

    2. I’ll preface this by saying I’m a bisexual woman who is a moderate Democrat. That said, I believe that some issues should be bigger than party or sexual preference. I truly resent the fact that the reason this has become such a scandal is that the page is a boy. Not that what happened wasn’t inappropriate and reprehensible. But I think the wrong message is that it’s horrible because it’s a man and a younger boy instead of the act itself being horrible.

    Comment by jaded cynic — September 30, 2006 @ 10:05 pm - September 30, 2006

  131. #127: I don’t have a problem with anything you say and if a jurisdiction decides it wants the types of rules you suggest then that’s fine as long as they don’t have different rules based on the sex of those involved.

    Comment by Ian — September 30, 2006 @ 10:06 pm - September 30, 2006

  132. #128: “the reason this has become such a scandal is that the page is a boy”

    I disagree. I think it would have been a scandal if a 16 y.o. girl was involved. The reason it’s a scandal is that it’s a powerful Republican Congressman getting his rocks off by talking dirty with a kid. Part of the scandal is that Foley is known for his work on curbing Internet predators of which he apparently is one. It’s even more of a scandal that the GOP leadership has known about this and done nothing to investigate Foley. Presumably it would have been bad for politics. Well, damn them to hell for that.

    Comment by Ian — September 30, 2006 @ 10:14 pm - September 30, 2006

  133. “What responsibility does the St. Petersburg Times have to expose allegations of a very serious crime when they become aware of it….versus sitting on it until Election time? It really makes me wonder what they were thinking. ”

    LOL!!! Then what do you think about the leadership sitting on it until only AFTER someone else brought it up?!?!?

    Oh, oh, that’s right: Barney Frank’s fault…or something like that. Ah, hell, blame it on Hillary Clinton.

    Comment by jimmy — September 30, 2006 @ 10:37 pm - September 30, 2006

  134. #115
    BTW – NAMBLA is a disgusting organization that should be investigated and folks involved should be arrested and prosecuted.

    They are. However, their buddies on the left and the ACLU get them off the hook.
    Why? Because having sex with children is their inalienable right.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 1, 2006 @ 1:11 am - October 1, 2006

  135. A minor is generally considered to be someone under the age of 18. Many jurisdictions have an age of consent of 16 or even less. Are you claiming those jurisdictions are wrong to set an age less than 18? The age of consent varies widely. Like a typical Dobson theocrat, you “know” what’s best for everyone else and want to ram your “morality” down everyone else’s throat.

    Sorry, puppet IanRaj, but this is what you Democrats were claiming before:

    Sex with minors (0-18) is only one thing:
    Rape.

    Backpedaling already?

    And furthermore, puppet, if you want to try to whine that 16 is the age of consent, the individual to which Foley was talking was of legal age; therefore, no crime was committed by your standards, and the minor could consent to anything and everything.

    Would you like to make your hypocrisy more obvious? You’ve already demonstrated that you have absolutely no qualms whatsoever about Congressmen having sex with underage children, nor do you damn their leadership to hell for not stopping it and perpetuating them in power — when they’re Democrats.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 1, 2006 @ 1:37 am - October 1, 2006

  136. 132. The ACLU gets NAMBLA’s members off the hook when overzealous prosecutors cut corners to make a case against them. As well it should. Free speech is a fundamental right of all Americans, even reprehensible ones.

    117. Pedophilia was not Victor Salva’s ticket to career enhancement. (It didn’t help Roman Polanski, either.) When Jeepers Creepers made money, his career took off. Briefly.

    Comment by Tim Hulsey — October 1, 2006 @ 1:38 am - October 1, 2006

  137. LOL!!! Then what do you think about the leadership sitting on it until only AFTER someone else brought it up?!?!?

    Um….because the parents of the individual involved asked them to keep it private?

    Before you can criticize this, Jimmy, you need to state three things:

    1) Sex with minors is illegal and should be criminally punished

    2) Anyone who has sex with minors should be reported to the police immediately, regardless of the wishes of the parents

    3) Sending questionable emails or instant messages to teenagers is the same as having sex with them.

    If you can’t affirm those, you have no business making your statements.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 1, 2006 @ 1:42 am - October 1, 2006

  138. #111, NDT, unfortunately in the general public, the moment a man expresses a sexual interest in another male, whatever his age, the assumption is that he is homosexual.

    Then it would seem obvious that we would want to try to disassociate homosexuality from pedophilia, especially in a case where the person himself is not claiming to be gay or using the fact that he is gay as an excuse for his behavior.

    But instead, we insist that he is gay and whine about how people inexplicably associate pedophilia with homosexuality.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 1, 2006 @ 1:46 am - October 1, 2006

  139. Do we know what “leadership” knew before now? I can’t think of how many times lately I’ve said something on usenet and gotten the response, “You’re assuming that’s what the motivation was. The same events could be interpreted differently.” If the leadership knew details they should definately answer for their lack of action. If all they knew is that a page interpreted some things said as creepy and now it is clear that events were far more serious than a kid being uncomfortable around an adult (I had a teacher that made all the girls uncomfortable but I’m almost certain that he never *did* anything. I never even heard a rummor that he *did* anything.) And I hate to say this, but if they thought Foley was gay they may have assumed that boys were reacting to that even without Foley doing anything. “He made me uncomfortable” could have been attributed to heterosexual young men reacting to “gay vibes” or something.

    Do we actually know what information they had? Do we know what they were told? So far it seems they knew *something* but were asked not to pursue it. If it wasn’t detailed enough to demand action despite parental wishes *and* they had no other complaints…?

    We do need to know and it should be pursued. But as far as I can tell, right now we *don’t* know. The original e-mails we found out about are creepy but not that cut-and-dried *until* we get the IM message exhanges at which point it’s absolutely clear that the e-mails don’t just *seem* a bit creepy.

    Comment by Synova — October 1, 2006 @ 2:17 am - October 1, 2006

  140. Why does it have to be political?

    An old man, in a position of respect & power,
    has influence on the younger generation.

    Kids look up to grown-ups for guidence and strength.

    Kids want to feel safe where grown-ups are concerned.

    Grown-ups persuing children for their own purposes, using a position of power as their “attractiveness” are
    not political, nor gay or straight. But mindless individuals that think not, to the overall destructive factor, that their actions do to a child.

    Mis-steps, and inapropriate behavior by an adult to children could leave a child scarred for life. As childrens brains are like sponges and absorb everything. And
    kids don’t always know how to deal with experiences or information that come to them except for telling parents or close adults.

    So I applaud this kid for having the courage to tell his
    parents, and others. He was smart, mature, and courageous to spot, decipher, and report in-appropriate behavior by an adult (Foley).

    Foley seemed to have used his position to gain a foothold or point where he felt comfortable e-mailing
    personal messages to kids without the fear of being caught. Possibly thinking the kids would not report it
    due to his position.

    I am glad this kid had the courage to report it.

    Other pages might not have the same courage.

    Comment by Jeff Winters — October 1, 2006 @ 2:41 am - October 1, 2006

  141. #133: “this is what you Democrats were claiming before:

    Sex with minors (0-18) is only one thing:
    Rape.

    Backpedaling already?”

    Since I never said any such thing, how could I be backpedaling?

    “the individual to which Foley was talking was of legal age; therefore, no crime was committed by your standards, and the minor could consent to anything and everything.”

    Well, that would be the case if the age of consent governing the case was 16. But it’s not. Federal law which applies to email and IM has an age of consent of 18.

    “nor do you damn their leadership to hell for not stopping it and perpetuating them in power — when they’re Democrats.”

    How would you know what I did or did not do 23 years ago?

    N-Dobson-T, your rambling rants are becoming less coherent as this scandal unfolds. You remind me of the aliens in Mars Attacks except instead of yodeling causing heads to explode it will be the words “Speaker Pelosi.” Get used to it!

    Comment by Ian — October 1, 2006 @ 2:43 am - October 1, 2006

  142. NDT, cite your source for me claiming that McGreevey is a “gay liberal hero” and “being gay justifies his bad behavior.”

    Please cite where I have been “running around claiming that Foley is gay.”

    This moron awaits your response.

    Comment by DanielFTL — October 1, 2006 @ 3:34 am - October 1, 2006

  143. Oh, and from your own blog NDT:

    “Right-wing zealots will no doubt see and act on this as a golden opportunity to once again, as they have before, link homosexuality and pedophilia.”

    Comment by DanielFTL — October 1, 2006 @ 3:37 am - October 1, 2006

  144. #95

    Ever notice that in the cases of Trafficant, Condit, Jefferson etc., the media NEVER would mention they were democrats?

    If Foley had a D after his name, this story would be buried faster than a cat burrying a turd.

    Speaking of which, I suppose it’s a good thing that Foley didn’t pull a Gary Condit on this kid.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 1, 2006 @ 5:55 am - October 1, 2006

  145. The ACLU gets NAMBLA’s members off the hook when overzealous prosecutors cut corners to make a case against them. As well it should. Free speech is a fundamental right of all Americans, even reprehensible ones.

    You mean the freedom to anally fuck a 6 y/o is a fundamental right of all Americans. Prosecutors have not cut corners to make a case against them and you’re excusing the despicable behavior.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 1, 2006 @ 6:00 am - October 1, 2006

  146. Going up a bit

    #40 Scott — September 29, 2006 @ 8:27 pm – September 29, 2006

    This is a real shame and unfathomable. In reading the posted IM’s between Foley and the Page, I cannot believe his horrific judgement. He was either on drugs, mentally ill or arrogant beyond reason. His frequent typos and misspelled words (Pensecola) make me think it might be the former.

    No, not necessarily. Instant Messaging (essentially private chat rooms), which is what they primarily appear to have been doing, necessitates rapid typing and use of abbreviations, which often result in typos.

    One thing that I find interesting is that someone thought to log the IM chat (that is, save it to disk during a session; normally, if a chat session ends without logging, the chat is lost), which leads me to wonder whether the people on the other end of the Foley IMs “had it in for him.” Otherwise, why would they even consider the notion of logging the IM chat? Also, at least with AOL’s IM software, it is possible for a user to block another user (based on his “handle” or “screen name”). Query why the former page didn’t just do that if he found Foley to be annoying.

    Comment by raj — October 1, 2006 @ 6:36 am - October 1, 2006

  147. #47 kat — September 29, 2006 @ 9:20 pm – September 29, 2006

    Isn’t NAMBLA just a group of gay men who promote sex with kiddies?

    No, NAMBLA is a group of adult males whose stated goal is to lower the age of consent. Infer from what what you will. I infer that they want to have sex with kiddies, whether or not they are promoting it. But that’s just me.

    Just to let you know, there are “organizations” that actually do promote sexual relationships between adult males and underage females. One of them, the Rene Guyon Society, has (or had) the slogan–which is falsely attributed to NAMBLA–”sex before eight, or else it’s too late.” I learned about that group while posting on the wingnutty FreeRepublic.com–it’s amazing what you can learn from engaging the enemy.

    But is NAMBLA gay men? For the most part, probably not.

    BTW, given the fact that, in one of your other posts, you refused to post a link to the WorldNutDaily article that you cribbed from, I’m not going to go to the effort of redoing the research on “Dr.” Judith Reisman that I did a number of years ago for you. If you are interested, do a google search using key words “judith reisman captain kangaroo” “judith reisman meese pornography commission” “judith reisman kinsey institute” “judith reisman kinsey lawsuit” “judith reisman kinsey lawsuit fee” If you did do those searches (and I doubt that you will) you’ll find several pages on which I posted comments about judith reisman.

    Comment by raj — October 1, 2006 @ 6:49 am - October 1, 2006

  148. #104 Synova — September 30, 2006 @ 12:14 pm – September 30, 2006

    I know someone who had sex (what exactly, I don’t know) with an adult when he was 12. Raj, guess what he said. Guess.

    That is moderately interesting. If you can link that to the Studds case, it might make it more interesting, perhaps even relevant. Unfortunately, you haven’t even tried to do so, so your comment makes no sense.

    So a 17 year old, when he was 20, stands up and says it was consensual.

    Presuming that you are referring to the Studds case, the former page was 17 years old in 1973. The press conference at which he and Studds appeared together was in 1983. On the assumption that you can do arithmetic, that is a 10 year time span, which would mean that the former page was 27, not 20, at the time of the press conference. As far as I can tell, someone who is 27 would pretty much be considered a mature adult–although with the recent Foley revelations, one might have to wonder about people in their 50s.

    BTW, if you read what I posted, at the press conference Studds and the former page did not declare that “it” was consensual. They declared that “it” was nobody’s business but their own. You don’t even know what the “it” was, now, do you? Maybe your fevered imagination might be able to conjure up something, but there was no indication–no legal proceeding, for example–that suggested what the “it” was. Contrast that with Dan Crane’s case, where Crane in 1980 had pleaded “no contest” to a charge of having had a sexual relationship with an underage female congressional page. “No contest” is not a guilty plea, but it sure suggests that there was some “hanky-panky” going on between them. Regardless, it is clear that the House Ethics Committee had to find a Democratic representative on whom they could dig up “dirt” in order for the investigation regarding the Republican Crane to go forward.

    Comment by raj — October 1, 2006 @ 6:52 am - October 1, 2006

  149. #127 just me — September 30, 2006 @ 9:42 pm – September 30, 2006

    I think 16 and 50 is wrong. I don’t want my 16 year old engaging in sexual acts with a 50 year old.

    What Foley is alleged to have done is clearly inappropriate and more than a bit creepy, but I haven’t seen anything that suggests that he did anything more than what might be considered cyber-voyeurism and possibly cyber-sex. I read at least some of the Instant Messages that were posted over at AmericaBlog, and there seemed to be nothing to suggest that Foley was trying to actually “hook up” with the former page.

    One might seriously wonder why this is coming out now, shortly before the election, when the Republican leadership in the House apparently knew of the allegations months ago. Is it because the Republicans wanted to get rid of Foley? There is no indication that Democrats knew what was going on. If the IMs and emails were leaked by Republicans to get rid of Foley, it was certainly a ham-handed way of going about that.

    Comment by raj — October 1, 2006 @ 7:11 am - October 1, 2006

  150. Why is it that so much time on the Democrats side is spent blaming Foley’s assumed sexuality for his behavior, and using said behavior to slam Republicans? Why is so much effort spent on the part of Republicans pointing out Democrats’ hypocrisy?

    We Democrats have to accept that, regardless of circumstances, Foley has he’s not gay. We must accept that until we get proof that he is gay. Even then, it shouldn’t matter. If we expect straight people to not care what our orientation is, we shouldn’t care what another person’s orientation is. Even if he were gay, if he wrote sexually explicit e-mails to a minor, he’s a sick puppy, as sick as priests who sexually abuse the most innocent creatures: our youth.

    Republicans, I’m catholic. Whenever someone comments on the Church’s history regarding priests and the sexual abuse of children, I don’t deflect or react defensively. I still have a job to do (worshipping per my personal faith while trying to affect change in the Church), and I do it to the best of my ability.

    It doesn’t matter what us Democrats say; gay Republicans have a job to do. They have to stick to their political beliefs, and affect change within the GOP. As a Democrat, I fully encourage and support in that endeavor.

    Comment by James — October 1, 2006 @ 7:27 am - October 1, 2006

  151. #122 Ian — September 30, 2006 @ 9:01 pm – September 30, 2006

    A minor is generally considered to be someone under the age of 18.

    Sorry, that’s not good enough. The age of majority differs as among the various states, and as among the various purposes. Generally, the age of majority to be able to execute a valid contract is 18. But the age of majority to be able to purchase alcoholic beverages is generally–although not exclusively–21. The age of majority to vote in federal elections is 18–states could, but (as far as I know, do not) impose different ages for state elections. The ages of consent to sex, as among the various states are described here, and it should be evident that it varies widely as among the various states, and may even vary based on marital status.

    Comment by raj — October 1, 2006 @ 7:44 am - October 1, 2006

  152. #128 jaded cynic — September 30, 2006 @ 10:05 pm – September 30, 2006

    I have a problem with the fact that this is a man of authority propositioning his subordinate.

    Pay attention. Foley was engaged in IMs and emails with a former page. Since the latter was a former page, he could hardly be considered Foley’s subordinate. And that is irrespective of the fact that the pages apparently are managed by a board of which Foley was apparently not a member.

    Comment by raj — October 1, 2006 @ 7:44 am - October 1, 2006

  153. #130 Ian — September 30, 2006 @ 10:14 pm – September 30, 2006

    #128: “the reason this has become such a scandal is that the page is a boy”

    I disagree. I think it would have been a scandal if a 16 y.o. girl was involved. The reason it’s a scandal is that it’s a powerful Republican Congressman getting his rocks off by talking dirty with a kid.

    Aside from the fact that Foley could hardly be considered a powerful Republican congressman, I tend to pretty much agree with #128–not completely, but pretty much. In my explorations of right wingnuttery, it has become clear that right wingnuts pretty much value males–including young males–much more highly than they do females. And that is true whether or not the wingnuts are male or female. That is one reason why right wingnuts are so antagonistic towards gay men, but not so much against lesbians. I could go into the obvious misogynistic interpretations of this, but I’ll refrain.

    Comment by raj — October 1, 2006 @ 7:47 am - October 1, 2006

  154. Gay republicans are such a hoot when they implode. They’re all like, “Studds! Frank! Studds! Frank! Clinton’s Penis! Sky is falling!!!!”

    It’s even funnier when the whole GOP (Gang Of Perverts) is going down!

    Check out: Republican Perverts

    Comment by Mike Tidmus — October 1, 2006 @ 8:15 am - October 1, 2006

  155. From the post

    What responsibility does the St. Petersburg Times have to expose allegations of a very serious crime when they become aware of it….versus sitting on it until Election time? It really makes me wonder what they were thinking.

    Oh, Jesu F. Christ, GP, if it really makes you wonder what the St Petersburg Times was wondering by holding the story (which, it should be noted, was also held by the Republican leadership in the House), you are more than capable of emailing them and asking them why they did. The fact that you and your ally from “RealDumbPolitics” apparently have not done so more than suggests that you all are really not interested in knowing why. You just want to blo(g)viate.

    BTW, what makes you believe that what Foley did was a crime, serious or otherwise? Cite chapter and verse. I’m sure that you are more than capable of citing to the United States Code.

    Comment by raj — October 1, 2006 @ 8:22 am - October 1, 2006

  156. #137: “Do we actually know what information they had? Do we know what they were told? So far it seems they knew *something* but were asked not to pursue it. If it wasn’t detailed enough to demand action despite parental wishes *and* they had no other complaints…?”

    Well, they knew enough to keep the one Dem on the Page Board in the dark about it all. One has to wonder why the parents reported it at all if they didn’t want anything done about it. The contradictory stories – virtually all self-serving – coming from the GOP House leadership suggest that they are all desperate to avoid blame. If it’s all so innocuous, why the desperation?

    Comment by Ian — October 1, 2006 @ 9:31 am - October 1, 2006

  157. #134 — Hollywood morality: Rape all the sixth graders you want, just make sure you make money, and all is forgiven.

    Comment by Nobody — October 1, 2006 @ 10:20 am - October 1, 2006

  158. #134: Interesting legal “morality.” Prosecutors who want to lock up child predators are “over-zealous.” It’s good for society when child predators are sprung on technicalities.

    James Dobson is looking pretty good right now.

    Comment by Nobody — October 1, 2006 @ 10:43 am - October 1, 2006

  159. #151: “Aside from the fact that Foley could hardly be considered a powerful Republican congressman”

    Not to get into a pissing match but, as a Deputy Whip, he was at least part of the GOP leadership. In addition he was a member of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee. So I think my characterization of him as “a powerful Republican Congressman” stands.

    Comment by Ian — October 1, 2006 @ 2:55 pm - October 1, 2006

  160. First it should be noted that the youth was above the age of consent in the District which is 16. He in fact turned 17 and much of the correspondence was after his 17th birthday. So he was legally allowed to consent to sex though none took place excerpt perhaps via email. He is not considered a child. The problem for Foley is that his base hates homosexuals. He knows that so what other choice does he have but to resign. Full details can be found here http://www.freestudents.blogspot.com.

    Comment by CLS — October 1, 2006 @ 2:58 pm - October 1, 2006

  161. I find that I have mixed emotions about this whole matter. To me it is sad that my fellow conservatives end up in scandels about their sexual proclivities, not that all liberals are forward and honest either vis a vis the former govenor of New Jersey. There’s hypocrisy on both sides of the aisle and in all stripes of political affiliations. Also, I have a problem about age. I think it is hypocritical when a 13 or a 14 year old commits murder he/she is often tried as an adult on the grounds that he/she is rational being who committed premeditated murder. 13 and 14 yr olds climb in bed with each other in both staight and gay sex and it is winked at, except if the girl having hetero relations becomes pregnant. As soon as a boy between 13 and 17 has sex with an over 18 or 21 yr old he’s a victim and has had innocency stolen. I truly think that the age of consent has to be reviewed in terms of modern times. Some European countries have done it, I think it can be done in the U.S. My maternal grandfather was 24 yrs old when he married my grandmother in Italy. Should the marriage have been annulled and he charged with statutory rape?

    Comment by Roberto — October 1, 2006 @ 3:13 pm - October 1, 2006

  162. Considering Europe is dying, I hardly think we should want to emulate them. Yes, times have changed. In previous eras, when an adult man had sex with a teenaged girl, he would reasonably be expected to marry her, stay married to her, and take care of her throughout her life. Nowadays, 70% of girls under 15 seeking abortions were impregnated by men over 20. (And Planned Parenthood just ignores laws requiring health care providers to report sexual abuse of minors). Lowering the age of consent only enables serial predators to rack up more victims.

    Some have floated proposals raising the age at which one could legally appear in an adult film to 21 or even 24. Sounds like a good idea to me.

    Comment by Nobody — October 1, 2006 @ 3:55 pm - October 1, 2006

  163. #158:”So he was legally allowed to consent to sex though none took place excerpt perhaps via email.”

    The problem is the exchanges were taking place over the Internet where Federal law (which Foley himself co-sponsored) applies. The Federal statutes set the age of consent as 18 so Foley is in trouble as is indicated by the FBI starting to investigate.

    Comment by Ian — October 1, 2006 @ 4:11 pm - October 1, 2006

  164. By the way my grandmother was 15 years old when she married. In her days her first experience was their wedding night.

    Comment by Roberto — October 1, 2006 @ 4:59 pm - October 1, 2006

  165. By the way my grandmother was 15 years old when she married. In her days her first experience was their wedding night.

    Actually this is a key part of the story.

    Your grandfather wasn’t looking for a 15 year old sex partner for the short term, but was making a commitment to her.

    Adults should not be seeking children or teens for sex. If they are interested, then they should excersize some self control, and wait until they are old enough.

    There is no reason for 14 year olds to be having sex with 20, 30, or whatever year old adults-none. And to be honest I don’t understand why adults are interested in kids this age, when I look at 14 or 16 year olds I do not think potential sex partner.

    Comment by just me — October 1, 2006 @ 6:40 pm - October 1, 2006

  166. Girls did used to get married at much younger ages and often to men who could be considered “established” or at the very least having achieved the ability to support a wife.

    It’s not the same thing as a sex partner. There wasn’t any concept of “old enough to screw around”. A man who seduced a girl or woman from a good family really didn’t have the option of claiming “she was legal” as a defense.

    Comment by Synova — October 1, 2006 @ 8:56 pm - October 1, 2006

  167. Since I never said any such thing, how could I be backpedaling?

    I don’t think the quote was in the least vague: Democrats said that sex with people under the age of 18 is rape.

    And that’s what you’re claiming now; Foley raped this page.

    Of course, when confronted with Studds’s example, you STILL can’t condemn that as rape; instead, you whine and spin about how I couldn’t possibly have known what you were saying 23 years ago — despite the fact that your protection of Studds now makes it obvious that that’s what you were doing then as well.

    One has to wonder why the parents reported it at all if they didn’t want anything done about it.

    LOL…….but they did, and something WAS done. Not all things have to be reported to the media; especially in the case of sexual incidents, all pains should be (and are) taken to protect the identity of the victims.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 1, 2006 @ 11:12 pm - October 1, 2006

  168. Nowadays, 70% of girls under 15 seeking abortions were impregnated by men over 20. (And Planned Parenthood just ignores laws requiring health care providers to report sexual abuse of minors).

    Very pertinent. Remember, the Democrats are the party that, in the case of underage girls getting pregnant, wants laws that PREVENT it from being reported to their parents.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 1, 2006 @ 11:16 pm - October 1, 2006

  169. NDT, cite your source for me claiming that McGreevey is a “gay liberal hero” and “being gay justifies his bad behavior.”

    Please cite where I have been “running around claiming that Foley is gay.”

    To the latter, I quote:

    The only thing that matters here is how universally bad it is for all gay men. This Foley jackass has provided more ammunition for those opposed to homosexuality on the grounds that gay men prey on children.

    Seems like you’re doing a fine job of claiming Foley is gay there.

    For the former, you might consider actually reading what I wrote.

    Foley has never once said that he is gay — or, like gay liberal hero Jim McGreevey, claimed that being gay justifies his bad behavior.

    And finally to your last quotation from my blog…..you forgot a crucial point:

    Right-wing zealots will no doubt see and act on this as a golden opportunity to once again, as they have before, link homosexuality and pedophilia, especially given that foolish and shortsighted “gay activists” are trying to claim that Foley’s actions are because he is a closeted gay.

    You see, I know what they’ll try to do. But without evidence, they’ll just look mean-spirited and stupid — that is, until the point in which you give it to them.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 1, 2006 @ 11:38 pm - October 1, 2006

  170. So basically, since you cannot cite me stating those things, you imply it that I have said them by asserting that it is so. Since you cannot cite, you’re wrong, end of story.

    Comment by DanielFTL — October 2, 2006 @ 1:40 am - October 2, 2006

  171. LOL…..you missed the point, DanielFTL.

    First, I cited clearly where you claimed that Foley was gay — twice.

    Second, I repeat this quote:

    Foley has never once said that he is gay — or, like gay liberal hero Jim McGreevey, claimed that being gay justifies his bad behavior.

    You aren’t even mentioned.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 2, 2006 @ 2:46 am - October 2, 2006

  172. Right-wing zealots will no doubt see and act on this as a golden opportunity to once again, as they have before, link homosexuality and pedophilia

    Frankly, the fact that several people in this column have stated that an age-inappropriate affair is okay if the kid later says he consented to it, that the ACLU are heroes for defending NAMBLA and prosecutors who go after child rapists are “overzealous,” and that the age of consent should be lowered… kind of helps the “right-wing zealots” make their case.

    Comment by Nobody — October 2, 2006 @ 5:25 am - October 2, 2006

  173. From #170 Nobody — October 2, 2006 @ 5:25 am – October 2, 2006 (although I don’t know where it originated)

    Right-wing zealots will no doubt see and act on this as a golden opportunity to once again, as they have before, link homosexuality and pedophilia

    Actually, it is just as likely that right wingnuts will also use this as a golden opportunity to eliminate as many gay people from the Republican party–at least from positions of authority, elected and otherwise–as they can. Something like what the RCCi (the Roman Catholic Church, Inc.,–the hierarchy) has apparently been trying to do since the RCCi’s priest sex abuse scandal broke.

    Frankly, the scandal involving Foley is not that dissimilar to the RCCi’s scandal. They both involved management engaged in a cover-up over their underlings’ activities. The Republicans have Robert Bauman (former Republican representative from MD, who resigned in 1980 or so for having been caught engaging in homosexual acts), James West (former Republican mayor of Spokane), the fellow from Virginia (whose name I don’t recall) and now Foley. The right wingnuts will obviously use this latest as an excuse to excommunicate gay people from the Republican party.

    Of course, straight Republican party officials have many more sex problems to answer to, but the wingnuts ignore that.

    Comment by raj — October 2, 2006 @ 6:20 am - October 2, 2006

  174. Restating your assertion NDT does NOT make it true. Quote exactly where I said that Foley was gay. You can’t. I know it, you know it, and everyone else knows it.

    I said:
    The only thing that matters here is how universally bad it is for all gay men. This Foley jackass has provided more ammunition for those opposed to homosexuality on the grounds that gay men prey on children.

    You said:

    Seems like you’re doing a fine job of claiming Foley is gay there.

    Where EXACTLY do I say that Foley is gay NDT? Nowhere.

    You’re an idiot.

    I was also right in my initial statement as a careful perusal of your allies’ websites yield what I said to be true.

    http://www.americansfortruth.org
    http://www.freerepublic.com
    http://www.aim.org/aim_column/4904_0_3_0_C/

    to name just a few.

    Comment by DanielFTL — October 2, 2006 @ 6:59 am - October 2, 2006

  175. DanielFtL, for someone who has redefined “ranting” and generally makes raj/Ian look “sane” by comparison, you might want to layoff on the Jolt before you post…. you’re starting to sound delusional… only this is a little more public than your rantingly insane blog.

    Free advice… do with it as you please.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — October 2, 2006 @ 9:08 am - October 2, 2006

  176. #172: “Where EXACTLY do I say that Foley is gay NDT? Nowhere.”

    Daniel, you have to realize this is N-Dobson-T’s M.O. He will argue black is white, up is down, day is night, etc. ad nauseum. No matter what evidence you provide to the contrary, he ignores it. He’s probably going to really lose it when “Speaker Pelosi” becomes a fact of life for him that he can’t deny. Yup, lots of exploding Repub heads when that occurs.

    Comment by Ian — October 2, 2006 @ 9:58 am - October 2, 2006

  177. Foley’s follies…

    One of the weekend’s stranger news stories concerned the Floridan politician Mark Foley. Foley, a Republican member of the House of Representatives, just resigned following allegations that he had sent sexually explicit emails to under-age (which in t…

    Trackback by Weblog - Gay Global - Times Online — October 2, 2006 @ 10:42 am - October 2, 2006

  178. Foley isn’t the only scandel. There are several pending on both sides of the aisle. It’s time to consider having what our founding fathers had, citizen legislatures instead of political professionals

    Comment by Roberto — October 2, 2006 @ 10:42 am - October 2, 2006

  179. #174 Ian — October 2, 2006 @ 9:58 am – October 2, 2006

    Daniel, you have to realize this is N-Dobson-T’s M.O. He will argue black is white, up is down, day is night, etc. ad nauseum…. He’s probably going to really lose it when “Speaker Pelosi” becomes a fact of life for him that he can’t deny.

    The dissembler NDT has already lost it. He posts over at the PamSpaulding blog under another handle (it’s fairly obvious that it is he). And a few weeks ago he was ridiculed at the Malcontent web site for his blo(g)viations. I don’t bother responding to him any more, because it is clear that he is a dissembler.

    Matty’s posts are largely fact-free, but NDT is a dissembler.

    Comment by raj — October 2, 2006 @ 10:55 am - October 2, 2006

  180. Clinically, Foley may not be a pedophile. When we studied abnormal psychology in college, we learned that pedophiles are attracted to someone still in prepubescence not merely someone who is young. Additionally pedophilia is not a legal term. In D. C. at least, Foley may not have acted illegally if his correspondents were not under age of consent. Certainly his closeted status and his hypocrisy resulted in objectionable ethical behavior. We can pray that he finds peace by arriving at an honest self-assessment that comes to terms with his political posturing.

    Comment by bill myers — October 2, 2006 @ 11:55 am - October 2, 2006

  181. Restating your assertion NDT does NOT make it true. Quote exactly where I said that Foley was gay. You can’t. I know it, you know it, and everyone else knows it.

    Actually, what everyone else sees is you making this claim:

    The only thing that matters here is how universally bad it is for all gay men. This Foley jackass has provided more ammunition for those opposed to homosexuality on the grounds that gay men prey on children.

    Your argument that you do not say that Foley is gay in that paragraph is quite incomprehensible; after all, you claim that Foley’s behavior is bad for all gay men and that he has provided more proof that homosexuals prey on children.

    How in the world can that be the case unless you are claiming he is a homosexual?

    Also, inadvertently, you prove my point, If you and your fellow Democrats weren’t running around screaming that Foley is gay, Peter LaBarbera would look like an idiot (“He spoke at the LCR convention! He must be gay!”). But instead, you have to hand the man “evidence”, don’t you?

    Actually, it is just as likely that right wingnuts will also use this as a golden opportunity to eliminate as many gay people from the Republican party–at least from positions of authority, elected and otherwise–as they can.

    Which might be exactly puppet RajIan’s point.

    By handing the wingnuts ammunition to use by claiming that Foley was gay and that’s why he was a pedophile, in RajIan’s twisted mind, that will punish those Republicans who dared to stray from the Democratic plantation and aren’t, like him, sitting there claiming that politicians who harbor prostitutes like Barney Frank, rape minors like Studds, use being gay as an excuse for public sex and corruption, like McGreevey, and demand amendments to strip gays of rights, like John Kerry and Inez Tenenbaum, are “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”.

    Unfortunately, not only is it counterproductive, it isn’t working. Even on DanielFTL’s FreeRepublic link, they are making it very clear that this whole Foley thing is about the pedophilia, not anything else — a fact made abundantly clear by every other Republican to which I talked.

    Instead, though, we have RajIan, IanRaj, DanielFTL, and other gay Democrats lining up in support of Peter LaBarbera, claiming that Foley was a pedophile because he was gay. (claps) Brilliant.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 2, 2006 @ 12:34 pm - October 2, 2006

  182. #176 The RajIan sockpuppet accuses another poster of being a dissembler. How quaint!

    Comment by BoBo — October 2, 2006 @ 1:31 pm - October 2, 2006

  183. From the Republican Playbook, Page 17, “When the opposition party is discovered to have engaged in hanky panky of any stripe, unleash the brickbats at full throttle. Ignore any charges of hypocrisy regarding misdeeds of the Holy Party members. Keep repeating, `He already apologized for that and continue flailing until the opponent is a bloody pulp or your arm falls off, whichever comes first.”

    I believe the Dems are following your playbook. Have a nice day.

    Comment by Miklos — October 2, 2006 @ 3:14 pm - October 2, 2006

  184. Thanks Michigan-Matt, I know just what to do with it.

    Comment by DanielFTL — October 2, 2006 @ 3:54 pm - October 2, 2006

  185. NDT, you still can’t prove it, as much as you write otherwise. Give it up.

    Comment by DanielFTL — October 2, 2006 @ 4:05 pm - October 2, 2006

  186. I love Pam’s House Blend. Her blog is great.

    Comment by DanielFTL — October 2, 2006 @ 4:20 pm - October 2, 2006

  187. This scandal is only scandalous because the US age of consent is so high compared to the rest of the world (typically 14-16). The europeans think this is laughable.

    Comment by pierre — October 2, 2006 @ 4:34 pm - October 2, 2006

  188. NDT, you still can’t prove it, as much as you write otherwise. Give it up.

    Ah, but you see, DanielFTL, I already have proven it.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 2, 2006 @ 5:52 pm - October 2, 2006

  189. Bzzzt. Wrong.

    Comment by DanielFTL — October 3, 2006 @ 3:22 am - October 3, 2006

  190. Let’s look at the cold, hard, facts. Objectively.

    Foley’s was a safe seat, which meant they could use the money elsewhere, in more vulnerable seats. When they received the information about Foley, if they knew that nothing would ever be said about it, they might have made the pragmatic decision that sleeping with the devil (keep Foley, a possible child molester) was better than forcing him to resign, electing another candidate (less well known and more risky) and having the possibilty of a Democrat filling the seat. So they made the pragmatic decision to sacrifice the well being of the page for the well being of the Republican party.

    The problem was, they didn’t count on the devil biting them back in the butt.

    And before anyone like NDT starts slamming me about being so liberal, I believe the Democratic party would have done the same thing if they were in the same position.

    Comment by jaded cynic — October 3, 2006 @ 9:25 am - October 3, 2006

  191. I believe the Democratic party would have done the same thing if they were in the same position.

    No, the Democrat party would have told people it was no big deal, and then re-elected him to several more terms. Like Gerry Studds (molester) Ted Kennedy (murderer) and Bill Clinton (rapist).

    Comment by Nobody — October 3, 2006 @ 10:02 am - October 3, 2006

  192. Gays ought to keep making it clear that this was not pedophilia. It wasn’t. The boy was not prepubescent by any definition. He was also legally above the age of consent so even if they had sex it would not be illegal in DC or in 32 states. Allowing people to call this “underage” is letting the nutty Right claim that pedophilia and homosexuality are the same thing — and they are doing this. The facts are important to counter this. Foley was dumb, obsessed and slimy but there was no underage boy here by the definition of the law. In fact no page in DC is below the age of consent since they all must be at least 16 to get the job. And this was on the cusp of turning 17 and did turn 17 during the conversations.

    Comment by CLS — October 4, 2006 @ 5:35 am - October 4, 2006

  193. I have been watching in earnest how media is polarized in favour of Bush. The most revered tool America had of press freedom seems to have lost in America. How come WMD was pushed as a cause to go to war in Iraq. The infamous speech by General Colin Powel to the UN was a disgrace to Army Uniform. The so called investigative reporting only investigating one side of the spectrum.
    How about American involvement in toppling otherwise demoratically elected governments. When I look back the terrorists were an American creation. Bin-Laden, Sadam Husein all were used by successive American Governments to reach their business objectives by un-democartic means. The so called press was silent about it ‘cos the employees of media giants are paid by the very guys who make the mockery of justice.
    Any body can see, Mark Folly is kept there cos of politics, to keep the Senate in the hands of the Republicans.
    The other day I was listening to Rush Lambah who was talking through his hind legs to suggest this is a democratic party snitch operation. I do not know how he can speak like that from his fowl mouth.
    The whole war has made Bush and his crony’s richer. No media is investigating on this and reporting to us. They are 10 times richer with all the sacrifices averege American’s have made. None of their children has died in the war. Why not some press researcher publish these figures.
    I thank you for running this blog. Hopefully you will have the backbone to reach the truth without all the masks.

    Comment by Lal Kahagalle — October 4, 2006 @ 4:59 pm - October 4, 2006

  194. The point conservatives seem to be missing with their comparisons to Studds, Frank, and even Clinton (geez! Monica was an adult, get over it!) is that Republicans think being gay is the most evil thing in the world – except, apparently, if you’re a powerful conservative in government. Then it’s okay. Just keep it quiet – even if the lad is underaged. The point of the matter isn’t that Foley is gay, it’s that he emailed sexually explicit messages to a 16 year old. Should Studds have been given the heave-ho? No doubt about it. Frank? If there were underaged guys involved, absolutely. Two wrongs don’t make a right.

    Comment by Paul — October 5, 2006 @ 3:32 pm - October 5, 2006

  195. Please don’t pigeonhole us liberals and put words in our mouths by saying that we believe that being gay and conservative is a crime. That’s every bit as much a bullshit GOP talking point as the Republicans claiming that we’re the party of cut and run.

    We don’t think that being gay and Republican is a crime… unless stupidity has also been made a crime by the Stalin administration. Why anyone would ally themselves with a party that is absolutely dedicated to their complete and utter annihilation is completely beyond me.

    But stupidity, the last time I checked (and frequent requests for DOJ and congressional documents through the FOIA wouldn’t be a bad idea) is not a crime.

    If it were, Bush would’ve been executed decades ago.

    Comment by jurassicpork — October 6, 2006 @ 5:12 pm - October 6, 2006

  196. Love this site it is one of the best for a newly gay man heading out of the closet.

    Comment by Alex Bigley — October 30, 2006 @ 12:26 pm - October 30, 2006

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.