Gay Patriot Header Image

My Thoughts on Ex-Rep. Foley

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 2:37 pm - October 1, 2006.
Filed under: 2006 Elections,Gay Politics,National Politics

Ever since I heard about Mark Foley’s resignation from Congress, I have been trying to craft a post. Whatever I try to write, nothing seems to come out right. I find the whole story disturbing and upsetting. And I wonder about this man’s judgment.

Surely, in the wake of the allegations last year against that then-Spokane Mayor Jim West chatted with 17- and 18-year old boys online, any public figure engaged in such online chatter should have been aware that his conversations could become public information. Maybe Ex-Rep Foley took comfort in the fact that after federal officials investigated the charges against the Spokane Republican, “they found insufficient evidence to charge former Mayor Jim West with abusing his office to meet young gay men over the Internet.

Yet, the scandal still tarnished West’s reputation and nearly two-thirds of his fellow citizens voted to recall him from office last December.

It wasn’t merely his family and the people of Florida whom Mr. Foley let down (as he said in statement). He also let down gay people. You can be sure social conservatives will be exploiting this to show how people like us prey on teenagers. And while the greatest number of pedophiles are middle-aged men preying on young girls, the stories which seem to get the most headlines are those of men hitting on teenage boys.

At this season, when we Jews seek to mend our ways and return to God in the coming year, I, aware of my own faults, want to forgive others of theirs. Mr. Foley behaved badly and did the right thing in resigning. He has begun his own process of atonement. Let us hope that the public humiliation he has suffered will cause him to examine his past behavior and behave more responsibly in the future, though no longer as a public figure.

-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest).

Share

51 Comments

  1. The Jim West saga was complicated and went back so many years.
    Jim West was arrogant, however, The Spokesman-Review made some bad choices “outing” him. After spending several years investigating West for sexual misconduct and misuse of his political position, The Spokesman-Review published an expose that revealed West frequented chat rooms on Gay.com and offered autographed sports memorabilia, seats to Seahawks and Mariners games and a City Hall internship to someone he thought was an 18-year-old high school student. The online pen pal was actually a forensic computer consultant working for the newspaper. They set him up. They copyrighted the breaking stories. Their on-line newspaper was subscription only except for this story. That made many readers suspicious.
    Jim West was one of the best mayors Spokane had in a long time. I still do not understand why the people of Spokane did not wait for the results of the federal investigation. They recalled him anyway. He died July 22, 2006 of complications from cancer surgery. Sad.
    Mark Foley did the right thing by resigning immediately. Now the leaders we have elected need to take the ball and run with it. They need to spell it out for our dimwitted friends. Predators are not just Republicans. They are not just Democrats. They are not always men; some are women as we have seen lately with all the female teachers preying on their young students. This is a crime and partisanship has no place in this discussion.
    I have found this blog most practical on this story and now have you bookmarked. I look forward to your sensible opinions on future news.

    Comment by cc — October 1, 2006 @ 3:33 pm - October 1, 2006

  2. Dan, I share your dismay about the impact on the gay community although NDT is liable to take you to task – as he did me – for suggesting that Foley is gay when Foley himself has never admitted it. You are right that Foley should certainly have known better. Good grief, he was involved in establishing the governing law and would surely have realized how this correspondence could be used against him if even one page (and apparently there were several) ever released the information. That suggests to me that Foley may have succumbed to “thrill factor” where much of the satisfaction of the “encounter” is tied up in the inherent danger of what he was doing. Look at all those who cruise and have sex in public rest areas and parks – George Michael comes to mind.

    These folks have serious emotional, psychological and maturity problems and I agree with Andrew Sullivan that much of this can be attributed to the corrosiveness of the closet http://tinyurl.com/ght6b

    Comment by Ian — October 1, 2006 @ 4:23 pm - October 1, 2006

  3. damn it. the internet was made for porn. i demand that foley release all his one-handed typed im’s, all his web cam recordings and all his private photographs of pages and others. and that i be free to use them at http://www.pagesgonewild.com.. foley got what he deserved. he’s a creep and a hypocrit. and don’t forget this while you are at it. ………….oh give me a fricken break. any 16 year old male better have the sense to discern what to consent to. the monroe louisiana page said “these emails are creepy, get away from me”. others apparently found them enticing and progressed to hour long im sessions. 16 years old is the age of consent in many states and it used to be 14. if parents were doing their jobs in raising critically thinking kids, instead of passing it off on television. the internet and the schools, (EDIT – see comment policy – only warning) like this would be non-existant.

    Comment by markie — October 1, 2006 @ 7:40 pm - October 1, 2006

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

    Comment by Anonymous — October 1, 2006 @ 8:13 pm - October 1, 2006

  5. I tend to disregard any comments about being forced in the closet by someone who signs his/her comments as “Anonymous.”

    How ironic.

    Comment by GayPatriot — October 1, 2006 @ 8:39 pm - October 1, 2006

  6. Gringrich was right… The GOP was in a damned if you do, damned if you don’t situation.

    Comment by Eva Young — October 1, 2006 @ 8:59 pm - October 1, 2006

  7. #6.. I have nothing to offer re: Mr. Foley’s atonement since that is between him and his G-d. However, whatever Foley is, he is not a pedophile. That term applies to those in their pre-pubescent years….This is just a clarification of terms, not a technicality to say he is innocent of stupid behavior.

    Comment by Benj — October 1, 2006 @ 9:11 pm - October 1, 2006

  8. #8: The actual term is ephebophile which cover the ages following puberty and up through the late teens.

    Comment by Ian S — October 1, 2006 @ 9:21 pm - October 1, 2006

  9. Oops. #9 is actually my comment. I’m on my laptop while my desktop is defragging.

    Comment by Ian — October 1, 2006 @ 9:23 pm - October 1, 2006

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

    Comment by Anonymous — October 1, 2006 @ 10:11 pm - October 1, 2006

  11. Mark Foley was no conservative and has generally been characterized as a moderate Republican by most publications announcing his career obit. I can understand how one could argue that the corrosive effect of the closet leads to such perversion. However, as I recall, Gerry Studs and Barney Frank were both out at the time of their announced pecadillos, so being open about one’s sexuality and a Democrat does not prevent bad judgment. To his credit, Foley resigned. The other two did not.

    It seems pretty sad that some folks need to lie in wait for any opportunity to throw rhetorical grenades at gay people with whom they disagree politically. Rock on GP!

    Comment by Scott — October 1, 2006 @ 10:24 pm - October 1, 2006

  12. Foley: just one bad apple.

    But you are forgetting about the bunch–all the members of the leadership that were aware of the problem for years.

    And Foley isn’t gay–he’s a closet ephebophile.

    And, I agree. Republicans, conservatives and the religious right people will be all over this. I’m looking foward to your sustained attention to them while this plays out. (They are, after all, in your voting bloc.) But I am guessing that Log Cabin, Andrew Sullivan, and the vast Left-Liberal conspiracy will take up most of your time.

    Comment by sean — October 1, 2006 @ 10:30 pm - October 1, 2006

  13. #12: “However, as I recall, Gerry Studs and Barney Frank were both out at the time of their announced pecadillos”

    Gerry Studds was NOT out at the time. He came out during the investigation. Perhaps he should have resigned, however, ultimately his constituents decided to re-elect him. Barney Frank was NOT reprimanded for his affair, instead it was for fixing his adult boyfriend’s parking tickets. Frank was not aware that the boyfriend was running a prostitution ring out of his home.

    As for Foley, until Florida activists outed him in 1996, he rated below 50% on the HRC Congressional ratings. He did support DOMA and has often bragged about doing so – no doubt to burnish his “conservative” credentials.

    Comment by Ian — October 1, 2006 @ 11:23 pm - October 1, 2006

  14. This blog really brings home the phrase (and the book): State of Denial

    Comment by Well? — October 1, 2006 @ 11:30 pm - October 1, 2006

  15. Dan, I share your dismay about the impact on the gay community although NDT is liable to take you to task – as he did me – for suggesting that Foley is gay when Foley himself has never admitted it.

    Looks like even a broken clock can be right at least once a day.

    There is no reason to call Foley anything other than a pedophile. He certainly has not used being gay as an excuse, and I see no reason to believe or care that he is or isn’t.

    Now to the matter of “Anonymous”.

    First, GP is absolutely right; Anonymous needs to uncloset himself before he criticizes others for not doing so.

    Second, since Anonymous apparently lacks the intelligence to understand the concept, GayPatriot was not “outed”; GP’s sexual orientation was known to everyone in his life. Instead, what happened is that gay Democrat activist Mike Rogers, with support from paid HRC staff, paid LCR staff, and Congressional Democrats like Louise Slaughter, began calling and harassing GP’s employer, webmaster, and friends, in many cases claiming he (Rogers) was acting on behalf of the police and imply that people could be jailed or arrested for not complying — similar to what Rogers had previously done against reporters and others who were critical of his methods. This was further facilitated by an illegal release of GayPatriot’s AOL records.

    GayPatriot never hid his identity because he was gay. He hid it out of concern for himself, his family, his friends, and his employers, all of whom would be targets of gay leftist Democrats like Rogers because GayPatriot dared to express different views than theirs.

    And now to deal with Anonymous’s pseudo-morality:

    So what other options did he really have? If it wasn’t preying on teens, it was going to be cruising parks or hiring hookers or phone chat lines.

    All of which you have no problem with when it’s Democrats like Jim McGreevey, Studds, or Frank.

    Isn’t it about time that you leftists explain why your party keeps producing so many perverts despite your alleging that gays are supported in its ranks?

    Maybe it’s because gay Democrats like yourself consider themselves so worthless that they have no choice but to endorse and support antigay bigots like John Kerry, or Inez Tenenbaum, or Robert Byrd, or Howard Dean.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 2, 2006 @ 12:08 am - October 2, 2006

  16. [Comment deleted.  This commenter has been repeatedly banned by the blog under his other names and will continue to be banned.]

    Comment by Anonymous — October 2, 2006 @ 12:33 am - October 2, 2006

  17. Republicans should own it instead of whining how Democrats did it too. I guess that won’t be happening particularly since Hastert wrote his letter to the DOJ to look into the matter. Let me translate that for you: Get the spotlight off of me.

    Comment by DanielFTL — October 2, 2006 @ 1:54 am - October 2, 2006

  18. I dare not “uncloset” myself. I hide my identity out of concern for myself, my family, my friends, and my employers, all of whom would be targets of gay Republicans like GayPatriot because I dared to express different views than his.

    LOL…..you flatter yourself, my dear.

    We think it quite obvious that anyone who is foolish enough to employ or befriend your type is suffering quite enough already from your acquaintance; thus, aside from our philosophical distaste for doing such things, we wouldn’t waste the effort.

    In essence, you closet yourself because you know the sort of fanatical hatred and behavior that drive YOUR kind — and project that onto everyone else. You assume that because you would take out a hit on GayPatriot, that we would do the same.

    I assure you that is not the case. But your continued insistence that it is serves only to reinforce the point that you are paranoid.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 2, 2006 @ 2:20 am - October 2, 2006

  19. i may have missed something in the Foley story, but how is he letting down gay conservatives. pedophilia a sick disease any man preying on a minor needs help

    Comment by ralph — October 2, 2006 @ 2:26 am - October 2, 2006

  20. difference b/w a republican pedophile and a democrat pedophile, the republican pedophile preaches as if none of his ilk could ever be a pedophile, the dp acknowledges that pedophilia is an equal oppty disease

    Comment by ralph — October 2, 2006 @ 2:29 am - October 2, 2006

  21. #12 Scott — October 1, 2006 @ 10:24 pm – October 1, 2006

    However, as I recall, Gerry Studs and Barney Frank were both out at the time of their announced pecadillos…

    This is an ambiguous statement. Are you suggesting that Studds and Frank were both out at the time when the incidents allegedly occurred, or that they were both out when the reprimands were handed down?

    Regarding Studds, the incidents for which he was reprimanded occurred in 1973 and he was reprimanded in 1983. It is doubtful that he was out in 1973, and I have seen indications that his 1983 reprimand was the cause for him being outed (or outing himself).

    Regarding Frank, he outed hiimself in 1987, prior to his reprimand. The time period during which he used his congressional stationary to to fix Gobie’s parking tickets is not clear, but it apparently ended some time before the reprimand, since, at the time of the reprimand, Frank and Gobie had long since parted ways.

    Regarding resignation, AFAIC it is up to their constituents to decide whether they should resign or remain in office and be re-elected. Why Foley resigned is far from clear, but I would suspect that it was because it was the tip of the iceberg of sexually explicit messages that he had sent to former pages, suggesting a consistent pattern. In addition, since it has also been reported that the Republican leadership in the House may have known of Foley’s consistent pattern some time, the leadership viewed him as an embarrassment to the party and told him to just go away.

    Why Studds and Frank didn’t resign is also far from clear, but they were consistently re-elected from their respective districts. Maybe, if the House Ethics Committee had wanted to delve into Studds’s case a bit further, they might have have found a consistent pattern, but they didn’t, and they apparently found nothing to link his activities to the Democrat leadership in the House. So the Democratic leadership would not have had a reason to call for his resignation.

    Comment by raj — October 2, 2006 @ 6:42 am - October 2, 2006

  22. Frank was not aware that the boyfriend was running a prostitution ring out of his home.

    Are you sure about this, or is this just what Frank said and you choose to believe him? Because I have a hard time believing you don’t know there is a prostitution ring being run by your live in boyfriend.

    Either way Frank isn’t a good comparison, Frank was unethical, and got away with it, but it wasn’t the same thing.

    Comment by just me — October 2, 2006 @ 7:01 am - October 2, 2006

  23. #23 just me — October 2, 2006 @ 7:01 am – October 2, 2006

    >>>Frank was not aware that the boyfriend was running a prostitution ring out of his home.

    Are you sure about this, or is this just what Frank said and you choose to believe him? Because I have a hard time believing you don’t know there is a prostitution ring being run by your live in boyfriend.

    Let’s put it this way. As I’ve posted here elsewhere here (with links) recently, the House Ethics Committee investigated an allegation that Frank was aware that Gobie was running a prostitution ring out of Frank’s DC townhouse, and was apparently unable to obtain evidence that it believed was sufficient to substantiate the allegation. You are certainly entitled to infer from that whatever you wish. And so am I. I infer from that that Frank was not aware that Gobie was running a prostitution ring out of Frank’s DC townhouse.

    BTW, what does one need to run a prostitution ring other than a telephone?

    Just to let you know, the right to infer runs in every direction. I might infer from the fact that Shrub choked on a pretzel while watching a football game a few years ago, that he was probably under the influence of something–something other than the pretzel. Of course, I don’t have any evidence of that, but that’s what I might infer. And further of course, you are perfectly entitled to infer something else.

    Comment by raj — October 2, 2006 @ 8:39 am - October 2, 2006

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

    Comment by Anonymous — October 2, 2006 @ 8:39 am - October 2, 2006

  25. [Comment deleted.]

    Comment by rightiswrong — October 2, 2006 @ 9:30 am - October 2, 2006

  26. I see that Speaker Hastert has requested that the FBI investigate whether “anyone” had knowledge of Foley’s e-mails and IMs. Good for him. I trust that by “anyone” he means not only the Republican leadership, but those persons who were shopping the e-mails and IMs around as well as those who received them. I wonder whether certain Democratic party activists and liberal bloggers are included in that group? It would be interesting to know whether some of them ran afoul of state mandatory reporting laws.

    After all, what is sauce for the Republican goose is sauce for the Democratic gander.

    Comment by Patrick Rothwell — October 2, 2006 @ 9:31 am - October 2, 2006

  27. RIW writes: “this blog is full of hypocrites and anonymous is doing a great job exposing all this b.s.”

    RIW, the only here exposing all to a load of “bs” is you… each time you post.

    The truth is, NDXXX is fairly well known in the blogosphere of gay conservative libertarian types… he’s had/has his own blog… writes for others… posts on more than a few sites. Get a clue, RIW… toggle on his handle and educate yourself before you make a fool out of yourself… again. He’s a known quantity.

    That’s a world of difference from the “drive-by posters” like Anonie-mouse. And, as Bruce rightly points out, for Anonie-mouse to criticize ANYone for hiding in a closet and then use the handle synonomous with hidden identities and cloaking is an irony worthy of a moment’s savor. There’s no “attack the messenger” in all that… just irony and a load of “bs” from you.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — October 2, 2006 @ 10:03 am - October 2, 2006

  28. um, you wonder about this man’s judgment? What’s to wonder? He’s a creep. And if anyone, including most of Congress didn’t already know he was gay, then they weren’t paying attention. Anyone in Washington should have already known that. The reason it wasn’t a big deal is because not all gay people prey on teenage boys. Anyone who argues otherwise clearly ignores the fact that plenty of heterosexual politicians have been caught doing the same damn thing with teenage girls.

    He has begun his own process of atonement? If he felt guilty for what he did, he would have resigned years ago when everyone else in his party found out he was already doing this? He only resigned because he got caught.

    While I admire your ability to forgive him so quickly during the season of Yom Kippur, I wonder if you would carry such admiration for the courage Foley has shown if he were a Democrat? I’d imagine not.

    Comment by Britton — October 2, 2006 @ 10:20 am - October 2, 2006

  29. If Foley were a Democrat, he’d be booking an appearance on Oprah, and the Dem leadership would be praising him for his “open sexuality.” Remember Barney Fife, er, Frank and the prostitution ring? As for Foley, atonement isn’t what he needs.

    Life in prison is what he needs.

    Comment by rightwingprof — October 2, 2006 @ 10:24 am - October 2, 2006

  30. GOP = Gay Old Pedophile

    Comment by Well? — October 2, 2006 @ 11:24 am - October 2, 2006

  31. This case is getting worse by the day. Yor’re darn tootin’ the Christian conservatives are going to run with this. Columninsts (Maggie Gallagher is coming to mind) are surely firing up their word processors right now & ready to call for a purge of gay men holding political office. You may try to distinguish between homosexuality, pedophilia & ephebophilia – IT DOESN’T MATTER TO THESE PEOPLE!!. You will be talking to a wall. Ms. Gallagher has once already (don’t know the exact date of this column) labelled ALL gay men – not just some, mind you – but ALL gay men are child molesters & Nazis. Gingrich’s statement of “We didn’t want to appear to be gay-bashers” line will be all they need.

    Comment by Jimbo — October 2, 2006 @ 11:27 am - October 2, 2006

  32. #30. If, if, if, if…yada, yada, yada. Peds don’t belong in either party, to be sure. But before you go spouting off such boring hypotheticals trying to paint Dems as soft on sex with children, you might want to find out what Tony Snow said today about the subject. He said just a few “naughty e-mails.”

    No need to for me to engage in wacky hypos. It’s there for you to see in your precious party. Let’s hope the decent members of the Republican party prevail, cuz the Bush adminstration seems to be soft on pedophiles.

    Good luck.

    Comment by FedUp — October 2, 2006 @ 11:29 am - October 2, 2006

  33. Ben Stein: “If there were an Academy Award for Hypocrisy, the surefire favorite for 2006 would be the Democratic Party… We have a Republican man in Congress who sent e-mails to teenage boys asking them what they were wearing, and an entire party, the Democrats, whose primary constituency, besides the teachers’ unions, is homosexual men and lesbian women. I hope it won’t come as a surprise to anyone that a big part of male homosexual behavior is interest in young boys.” Then he goes on to say that his best friend is gay.

    Fabulous.

    Comment by sean — October 2, 2006 @ 12:09 pm - October 2, 2006

  34. Okay…Lets get a few things straight here…
    1. A man trying to “get it on” with a 16-year old isn’t exactly pedophilia…this is more like your typical gay man going through his “mid-life crisis” by coming to a dance club, wearing a toupee, while trying to pick up some young guy half his age.
    2. Pedophilia is more about hate and control issues, and not about homosexuality. A pedophile gets his “kicks” from the sexual destruction of an innocent child. Foley is just trying to reaffirm his maleness, and his ego, by trying to get a “cabana boy” to make him still feel like a man.
    3. Homosexuality has NOTHING to do with pedophilia NOR with what Foley tried to do. Homosexuality is just the sexual orientation of a member of a gender to someone else of that same gender. PEDOPHILIA HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT!!! People who think like this are just as bigotted as someone who thinks that black people are not as able to be as smart as whites, or that all Italians are in the mob, or that all Irish people are born drunkards.
    What Foley did was neither perverted nor “gay”…just sad and pathetic!

    Comment by Jeffrey Williams — October 2, 2006 @ 12:12 pm - October 2, 2006

  35. Jeffrey, your above thinking is correct. There is a big difference between hitting on a 16- or 17-year-old (which, incidentally, is the age of consent in a couple of states like WV), and going after some kid in elementary school.

    That being said, I wonder if there would have been such a big outcry if (a) the 16-year-old page was female or (b) Foley had a “D” after his name. The whole thing stinks and I believe we will find out more in the ensuing weeks.

    And Jeffery, you hit the nail on the head with respect to ethnic/social stereotypes. Yet who is crying foul over “The Sopranos” as being insensitive to Italians? And it seems that when you have an African-American who “makes it” in today’s world (Oprah, Clarence Thomas, Condi Rice, Colin Powell, Tiger Woods), there always seems to be some kind of “player haters” of any race trying to pull them down.

    Unfortunately, when you got to the part about “all Irish people are born drunkards,” the first thing that flashed into my mind was the name KENNEDY….oh, well, you can’t win them all!

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — October 2, 2006 @ 12:33 pm - October 2, 2006

  36. to michigan matt: your comments show exactly what kind of person you are. small-minded and pathetic. oh, yeah, your football teams suck too.

    Comment by rightiswrong — October 2, 2006 @ 1:14 pm - October 2, 2006

  37. “A man trying to “get it on” with a 16-year old isn’t exactly pedophilia”

    Yes, that’s exactly what he is. And all pedophiles should get mandatory life sentences, with no chance of parole.

    Comment by rightwingprof — October 2, 2006 @ 1:16 pm - October 2, 2006

  38. Just a couple of thoughts, for the two cents they are worth. I understand those who wish to remain anonymous, because part affiliation and/or political leanings aside, more and more of what we do on the net is available to employers and others, and posting with your name can cause trouble later, especially on very partisan outlets. That being said, I don’t think it’s fair to post anonymously and accuse the blogger of something.

    As for my other thought, and as a leftie, I think the root problem (as I see it anyway) is that this makes the Republicans look worse because so much of the party line is wrapped up in “values”. I have some conservative leanings on some issues even, but I refuse to vote Republican until they eject the religious right from the party, and stop allowing evangelicals to dictate policy. That’s my own feeling on what’s going on, and why I think it’s easy for those on the left to point fingers.

    Said another way, it doesn’t look good for the party that allows one segment to demonize an entire population (including those within it’s own ranks) to win elections to suddenly find themselves with their own perverts to deal with. Even more so because in this day and age, the facts don’t matter – only the perception one side can convince the audience of. And I think those of us on the left are tired of being painted as the party of perverts by those who have their own human faults to deal with.

    I’m glad Foley resigned. Whatever he did or did not do, resigning was the right choice. I don’t know much about him, but even from what I read about him before this story broke caused me to not care for him. But I respect this decision because I think it was the right one.

    From the pinko left,
    Mike

    Comment by Mike — October 2, 2006 @ 1:25 pm - October 2, 2006

  39. Some think that the Foley affair smells fishy: http://www.floppingaces.net/2006/10/01/foleygate-has-begun/

    Comment by Nobody — October 2, 2006 @ 2:59 pm - October 2, 2006

  40. Let me see if I understand this. The Democrats got a hold of the emails months or years ago. Instead of reporting the emails to the authorities, they held onto them, had a George Soros-funded organization set up a fake weblog, and used the weblog to pass the emails to the media a month before the elections.

    Pretty sneaky, sis.

    Comment by Nobody — October 2, 2006 @ 3:23 pm - October 2, 2006

  41. #41. I don’t smell fish at all but, instead, the distinct smell of bleach, in at least two ways.

    Comment by sean — October 2, 2006 @ 3:25 pm - October 2, 2006

  42. Link for Stein’s American Spectator article cited by Sean in #34:

    Hypocrisy, Democrat Style

    Stein wrote “Don’t get me wrong. My very best friend is gay. I have many gay friends and they are great people”. That reminds me of what more than a few racists say about their black friends and what more than a few anti-semites say about their Jewish friends. As far as I can tell, Stein is also a homophobe.

    As I’ve intimated before, Stein, whose primary claims to fame were as a spokesman for Murine and a program on Comedy Central, is a jacka$$.

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

  43. Do you hold Hastert and Boehner and Simkus to this same standard? Are they SURE they didn’t know how bad things were with Foley, or did they just choose to believe him?

    Actually I am not sure of what they knew at this point, I haven’t seen enough to condemn them, because the IM’s were apparantly not public knowledge until just a few days ago. The emails weren’t really sexual, sort of weird and creepy in some places, but nothing you would consider sexually explict.

    I think what concerns me at this point are the statements that it was well known among the Pages and they were warned about Foley. If this was widely known among the GOP it was probably also widely known among the dems, why wasn’t congress doing more to investigate the rumors, expecially the Page board. Granted I am not sure how much authority they have to investigate based on rumors, and it is possible that while the Pages talked to each other, they may have been closing ranks with the adults (something that is not uncommon among teens).

    Comment by just me — October 2, 2006 @ 4:41 pm - October 2, 2006

  44. intersting thing about some of these scandals is the role email has played. this and aabramoff would have had no case without it. and my guess is both behaviours started before the advent of email.

    Comment by lester — October 2, 2006 @ 5:26 pm - October 2, 2006

  45. As I’ve intimated before, Stein, whose primary claims to fame were as a spokesman for Murine and a program on Comedy Central, is a jacka$$.

    Feel free to post your own credentials, puppet RajIan, and see how they measure up to Stein’s.

    Or just retreat into cowardice and trying to tear down Stein’s, as you perpetually do. That’s sign enough that you are neither as qualified or intelligent as he is.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 2, 2006 @ 5:49 pm - October 2, 2006

  46. “Behaved badly”? He engaged in explicit online conversations and may have been engaged in illegal sexual contact with minors. You jump all over Clinton about Monica Lewinsky, yet you call a guy who possibly broke the law with a minor as bad behavior? Puh-lease.

    Comment by Kevin — October 2, 2006 @ 10:11 pm - October 2, 2006

  47. Kevin, the operative word in your post above is “MAY.” Foley MAY have been involved in sexual encounters, but (a) either he didn’t and there is nothing to report, or (b) he did but it is being covered up. If it is (b) and he used his office to do so, then in my book he is just as guilty as Clinton was with Lewinsky and should be prosecuted.

    That being said, there is a big difference between sending a suggestive IM to getting a BJ in the Oval Orifice. What’s interesting is that the Foley accusation is in the same vein as the charges that a liar like Anita Hill used to try to bring down Clarence Thomas. It was merely based upon supposition of evidence, not hard physical evidence (no pun intended) that Clinton had with Lewinsky.

    But what is so interesting is that the same people that jumped all over Thomas for daring to use what MAY have been inappropriate language gave Slick Willie a total pass for actually ENGAGING in inappropriate behavior. Has it come to this now? Words are worse than actual deeds?

    But of course, a BJ isn’t really sex – according to the libtard left. Okay then, let’s employ that so-called logic: an IM isn’t really harassment.

    Suffice to say that Foley had the grace to resign and exit stage left. We’re still waiting for Slick Wille to just exit stage left.

    I rest my case.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — October 3, 2006 @ 1:03 pm - October 3, 2006

  48. #45 – Uh, lester, you’re cutting-and-pasting again. Please quit pulling a Joe Biden and use your own material.

    How can I tell? You used the British spelling of “behaviours.” In the USA, it is spelled “behaviors.” Look it up, libtard.

    Sheesh.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — October 3, 2006 @ 1:04 pm - October 3, 2006

  49. Peter H

    And here I thought as a smart lefty I would find smart righties here and all I see are rightards.

    Comment by Elais — October 3, 2006 @ 10:58 pm - October 3, 2006

  50. I wonder if Mr. smart lefty can explain why he thinks it was morally unconscionable for Foley to send dirty emails to pages, but no big deal when Democrats Gerry Studds and Mel Reynolds had actual physical sex with underaged staffers, and then went on to be in the case of Studds to be re-elected six times, and in the case of Reynolds, pardoned by Bill Clinton.

    Comment by Nobody — October 4, 2006 @ 8:40 am - October 4, 2006

  51. #50 – You mean there are actually smart lefties out there?

    Could have fooled me…

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — October 4, 2006 @ 11:40 am - October 4, 2006

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.