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. #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

  2. #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

  3. #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

  4. 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

  5. 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

  6. #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

  7. #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

  8. #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

  9. #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

  10. 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

  11. 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

  12. 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

  13. #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

  14. 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

  15. 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

  16. 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

  17. 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

  18. 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

  19. 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

  20. 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

  21. 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

  22. 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

  23. 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

  24. 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

  25. 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

  26. #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

  27. 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

  28. 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

  29. #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

  30. 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

  31. 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

  32. #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

  33. 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

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

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

  35. 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

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

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

  37. 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

  38. 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

  39. Bzzzt. Wrong.

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

  40. 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

  41. 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

  42. 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

  43. 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

  44. 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

  45. 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

  46. 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.