Gay Patriot Header Image

Was Mark Foley Set Up By Gay-Hating Democrats?

Barely minutes after our first blog-report Friday afternoon on Rep. Mark Foley’s imminent resignation, I received an email from Liz Mair, the editor of GOP Progress.com

Liz smelled something rotten in how the Foley matter developed.  She even did some investigating into the group “Citizens for the Responsibility and Ethics in Washington” (CREW).  CREW was part of the sourcing for the Brian Ross ABC News story that revealed the original Foley emails to the Congressional page last year.

CREW’s Executive Director, Melanie Sloan, has also worked for such illustrious, and ultra-partisan Democrats as John Conyers (between 1995 and 1998 she served as his Minority Counsel for the House Judiciary Committee) and Charles Schumer (in 1994, she served as Counsel for the Crime Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee, led by him).  She has also worked for Joe Biden, and also represented Joe Wilson. It is also true that Ms. Sloan guest blogs over at Al Franken’s site and has appeared on Keith Olbermann’s show, where she represented Mr. Wilson and Ms. Plame.

We are now learning that in addition to what Liz found out on Friday, CREW is a George Soros-funded organization.  How interesting.

Meanwhile, GatewayPundit shows the Left’s obsession with destroying Mark Foley because he was rumored to be gay dates back quite a while.  There’s no surprise who was behind that effort.

And now it has come to light that the first set of emails disclosed by ABC News may have been altered and Foley may have had a relationship with one of the pages involved in the Instant Message exchange.  ABC News has released new transcripts of an IM chat between Foley and someone they identify as a “teen.”

Maf54: I miss you lots since san diego.
Teen:   ya I cant wait til dc
Maf54: 🙂
Teen:   did you pick a night for dinner
Maf54: not yet…but likely Friday
Teen:   ok…ill plan for Friday then
Maf54: that will be fun

A relationship with a 17-year old page was okay with Democrats when it was Massachusetts Congressman Gerry Studds, if you recall.

This next exchange seems a bit of a lead-on by the Teen, as if trying to catch Foley into writing something explicit.

Maf54: I want to see you
Teen:   Like I said not til feb…then we will go to dinner
Maf54: and then what happens
Teen:  we eat…we drink…who knows…hang out…late into the night
Maf54: and
Teen:  I dunno
Maf54: dunno what
Teen:  hmmm I have the feeling that you are fishing here…im not sure what I would be comfortable with…well see

Now see here.  I still do not condone this kind of behavior by a Congressman with Congressional pages and more than a President with a White House intern.  It is sexual harrassment and intimidation at the very least.  Foley was wrong in his actions and was correct to resign.

And I do not normally buy into conspiracy theories.  But I must admit from the first I heard of this story I wondered if Foley had been set up.  It apparently was well-known by Republicans and Democrats alike that Foley was gay, and was at least friendly to the male Congressional pages.  Did someone exploit this weakness of his?

As I read everything today, I learned how CREW is tied to Soros, Foley was targeted by Left Wing activists, I learned that the original emails that broke the story seem to have been altered and I learned that “everyone” (House GOP Leadership as well as multiple media outlets) seemed to know about this Foley-page email story a year ago but no one did anything until now.

I dismissed Liz’s theory about CREW on Friday as she also did once we both learned about the explicit nature of the Instant Message chat content.  But I am now scratching my head and reconsidering.

Wouldn’t it be very ironic if the Democrats have turned the gay wedge issue back onto the Republicans in an explosive way.  But in going after Mark Foley, the further result has been a widespread impression across America that all gay men are pedophillic predators and creepy sex fiends.  If the Democrats were involved, they have created a hateful gay-lynching effort that goes way beyond the personal misconduct of one Congressman.

We have to remind ourselves, the only thing out of this sordid tale that we do know is that gay Congressmen do seem to have a lot of problems.  Until there is an investigation, we won’t know much more than this when it comes to the Foley Affair.

My last word:  Bring on an FBI investigation.  There is nothing more I would love to see than a certain player in this sordid story being hauled into the authorities to explain himself and his history of this type of attack against people.

The floor is now open for y’all.

[RELATED STORY:  Psychologist Robert Godwin agrees with me and sees Leftist Homophobia.]

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Share

101 Comments

  1. Just what I said in a comment box below. There are more and more reasons to be suspicious about the timing of the expose and other aspects of the backstory. Unfortunately, by the time the FBI investigations finds out whether there were some political dirty tricks involved, the election will be (or nearly) over and there won’t be any headlines. Unless, of course, one of the libs committed a crime.

    Comment by Patrick Rothwell — October 2, 2006 @ 6:23 pm - October 2, 2006

  2. Patrick-

    Thank you. Your comment was what started me digging on what was being reported out there today!!

    Comment by GayPatriot — October 2, 2006 @ 6:31 pm - October 2, 2006

  3. Personally, GP, I think that this is a bit silly.

    Instead of trying to play conspiracy theory, what we should be doing is stepping up to the plate and hammering home these four points:

    1) What Foley did is wrong, period.

    2) Whether or not he is gay or straight is irrelevant to the issue.

    3) A criminal and FBI investigation should be carried out, both of how the emails/IMs were sent and how they were revealed.

    4) This is not a question of party. It is a question of investigating a crime, regardless of party affiliation.

    What I would suggest, though, is that you make it known to the FBI that this isn’t the first time that Mike Rogers and John Aravosis have been able to come into emails and instant messages that were magically gleaned from AOL accounts in what appears to be an extralegal fashion.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 2, 2006 @ 6:39 pm - October 2, 2006

  4. NDT –

    I completely agree with ALL of your points. I felt compelled to report the “Foleygate” angle because it is buzzing out there.

    But I am more than happy to talk to the FBI at ANY time about what I know and experienced firsthand of the tactics used against Mark Foley and scores of other non-elected targets of the Leftist Homophobic Witchhunters.

    Comment by GayPatriot — October 2, 2006 @ 6:47 pm - October 2, 2006

  5. “A relationship with a 17-year old page was okay with Democrats when it was Massachusetts Congressman Gerry Studds, if you recall.”

    Actually, no. The Democratic majority in the House voted to censure Gerry Studds. You’re very foolish not to know this.

    Comment by Kyle — October 2, 2006 @ 6:59 pm - October 2, 2006

  6. I’m in agreement with North Dallas Thirty. Ok, the Dems can’t do banking.
    Now, the Repubs can’t do child abuse and internet crime. When does the American public get a Congress that works for them? 93 days of do-nothing in the House…110 in the Senate. Yeah, I’d like that job and what it pays if that’s all I have to work….all that and pages, too. Foley is a sick closet case.
    Conspiracy by Democrats? C’mon. It’s crime, man, it’s a crime and he can’t hide in an alcohol treatment program. Somebody had to burst the bubble. Defending him with a right hook anchored in conspiracy is over the top. Nice try, though. You won’t get America to believe it. Why aren’t you defending the kid? Isn’t that a Republican strategy? Defend the kid.
    And if the kid is gay or bi, it’s his business…but he’s still a kid. Get on the RIGHT side of the issue.

    Comment by Mountain Queen — October 2, 2006 @ 7:00 pm - October 2, 2006

  7. Point taken, GP.

    However, I would argue that the whole “Foleygate” buzz is an attempt to deviate from my four points, and in doing so, make us vulnerable by diverting attention away from the key thing — the investigation.

    The lesson should have been learned from Plamegate — let the criminal justice system work its way through things, and the truth turns up eventually. If Foley is to be sent to trial, then how the emails/IMs came into ABC’s hands will be directly investigated — otherwise they can be thrown out. Any delay in the trial only allows the Left to speculate more and push their version of events out into the media — something which I am quite certain that Hastert had in mind when he asked the DOJ to investigate with all due speed.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 2, 2006 @ 7:02 pm - October 2, 2006

  8. [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 @ 7:04 pm - October 2, 2006

  9. The newest spin seems to be that this was all caused by the GOP’s “pro-homosexual political correctness”. That they didn’t want to do anything because they didn’t want to be seen as anti-gay. Tony Perkins was using this on CNN a little while ago.

    http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=WU06J01&f=PG03I03

    So some people are going to find a way to use this to encourage more hostility against gays, or to imply that gays shouldn’t be in politics. I just hope people don’t fall for it.

    Comment by Carl — October 2, 2006 @ 7:29 pm - October 2, 2006

  10. I think the problem is that Foley’s actions were wrong, whether he was set up or not. His quick resignation and lack of denials, and even his quick check into a treatment center indicate at least some of these allegations are true.

    I do think there may have been a bit of a set up in how things were released-and I also wish the media would stop conflating the emails and the IMs as the same thing, because they are separate and apparantly involve totally different pages. I am not convinced that the Page(s) involved with the IMs were part of a set up.

    I do agree that an investigation into Foley’s actions and a vetting of the emails and IMs involved is in order-as well as any other Pages Foley may have made advances towards.

    If Foley is found to have committed any crimes I want him tried, and if convicted punished to the fullest extent of the law.

    Comment by just me — October 2, 2006 @ 7:31 pm - October 2, 2006

  11. CREW is tied to Soros

    Interesting.

    I wonder if Soros’ recent talk of “getting out of politics” is just a big red herring.

    Comment by Frank IBC — October 2, 2006 @ 7:48 pm - October 2, 2006

  12. The “double-standard” is if your a Democrat and actually slept with the young man you get slapped on the wrists; but if your a Republican and just “chatted” and flirted a bit “they” call for your head and demand you be imprisoned. Studds only lost his committee-rank for the balance of that term, but retained his senority-priviledges and committee seats.

    There’s no question that Foley should have stepped-down for abusing his authority, same as a teacher taking advantage of his position of authority. And I’m likely to agree that both the Republican and Democratic leaders on the Hill should have been more vigilant, once the full-truth comes out. But I don’t see this as political other than it’s timing to maximize the damage just before the fall elections. If Hastert and Boehner knew, then Pelosi and the Democrats knew just as well. This behavior apparently was well-known/suspected within the Halls of Congress, if not it’s extent. The failure is not that of a “party’s” leadership, but a failure of the entire institutions’ leadership. And if the FBI starts digging, is there any guaranty that some yet-un-named Democratic-member might also have been fishing in the Intern-pool?

    So far the Democrats have gotten-away-with both the “dead girl” (Ted Kennedy) and the “live boy” (G. Studds). They shoud be more prudent in their finger-pointing and tongue-wagging, lest they get burned too.

    Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — October 2, 2006 @ 7:51 pm - October 2, 2006

  13. One thing about this conspiracy I don’t understand… How were CREW and John Aravosis able to force Hastert, Boehnert, and Shimkus to keep quiet for a year so that they could make all this public right before the election?

    This is essentially the argument.

    There are emails from Page 1. These emails are sort of weird and on the creepy side, although mention nothing sexually explicit.

    There are IMs from Page 2 and maybe more (still unclear if they are all from the same Page or various Pages, but none are the guy with the original emails).

    The GOP leadership is informed of Page 1 and his emails. Parents decline to push for an investigation and just ask that the contact between Foley and their son stop. House leadership tells Foley to knock it off with this page and doesn’t do anything further. The IMs from the other Page or Pages are not reported to the GOP leadership, and they remain unaware of their existence.

    ABC and other media outlets are provided copies of Page 1’s emails. The newspaper in Florida opts not to cover this story, because the emails aren’t overly sexually, and the Page involved does not want his name mentioned and declines any further interview. The paper says they were unable to find any other Pages willing to provide information or go on record. They opted to kill the story without any named or at least cooperating sources.

    The emails and the IMs work their way into Soros’ hands. The emails are provided to some sex predator website. ABC goes with the story at that point. The next day the IM conversations are released, and Foley resigns.

    The set up I think is more in the sourcing of the more sexually explicit IMs, who had them and when, and whether anyone in the GOPhouse leadership had seen them or read them.

    The problem also for now, is that the emails and IMs are being considered as a package, and at times the perception is that both came from contacts with the same Page. The emails were from last summer, the IMs from somewhere around 2003.

    I think one piece of the picture that is coming out is that Foley was doing his thing with the Pages for years and had apparantly developed a reputation-which may have made it easy to set him up with regard to the IMs, although part of me isn’t swallowing that portion of the whole set up argument.

    I do think it is important to learn who had the IMs, where they came from, how long they had them, and if their contents were turned over to the house and when they were turned over. At the moment Hastert denies knowledge of the IMs or ever seeing them.

    Either way Foley dug his own grave, built his own coffin, and if there was a set up, perhaps the dem operatives just brought along the shovels to help bury him.

    Comment by just me — October 2, 2006 @ 8:02 pm - October 2, 2006

  14. Undoubtedly politics was part of this, such is the way things go in Washington, but to be frank who cares? What Studds or Franks or Clinton did or the hypocrisy of the Dems may be is all immaterial to this. I want Foley investigated and punished if he broke the law, I certainly do not want him in politics ever again, and I damn sure want to know what the GOP leadership knew and when they knew it. Cliche I know, but questions I want answers to. If they covered this up a la the bishops in the Catholic Church did, than I want heads. Period. As I just finished posting on my own blog: “It’s quite simple really and not rocket science: Don’t. Fuck. With. Kids.” Whatever the Dems did is a distraction and sideshow in all this. The GOP had better start talking and talking now.

    Comment by John — October 2, 2006 @ 8:03 pm - October 2, 2006

  15. In addition to knowing what the GOP knew and when they knew it, I would also like to know where the IMs have been the last three years, and when whoever had them got them from the Page in the IM, and what they did with them until last Friday.

    I suspect what is in them is real, mostly because if it wasn’t and I was in FOley’s shoes, I would be squalling my innocence on every TV news program that would book me. I would just like to know why they just now came to light.

    Comment by just me — October 2, 2006 @ 8:14 pm - October 2, 2006

  16. I don’t know what ‘gay’ looks like or means to you, but Foley doesn’t strike me as gay at all. He’s just a creepy teen-stalking homosexual…but not at all gay.

    And I will accept the charge that I am a pedophobe.

    Comment by jimmy — October 2, 2006 @ 8:33 pm - October 2, 2006

  17. #12. Didn’t Foley head up some caucus of “they”? You know, the people that have clamored for harder and stiffer and faster and harsher–oh yeah, oh yeah–penalties for this kind of treatment of young people?

    And it is sort of sad that while conservatives and Republicans using this Foley deal to deploy their twisted notions about healthy, mature, out gay men, this blog floats conspiracy theories rooted in its never disappearing dislike of the outing campaign folks. C’mon, grow a pair and address your fellow party members for once. Let’s see what you got.

    Comment by jimmy — October 2, 2006 @ 8:40 pm - October 2, 2006

  18. Mark Foley Scandal Hurts Democrats…

    Although some claim Foley’s overeager mentoring of male Congressional pages will be damaging to Republicans, I think this incident demonstrates why turning Congress over to the Democrats would be such a disaster….

    Trackback by Jon Swift — October 2, 2006 @ 8:46 pm - October 2, 2006

  19. Um… jimmy, it seems to be the Democrats who are pushing the “gay = pedophile” angle this week, in case you didn’t notice.

    Comment by Frank IBC — October 2, 2006 @ 9:05 pm - October 2, 2006

  20. -Um… jimmy, it seems to be the Democrats who are pushing the “gay = pedophile” angle this week, in case you didn’t notice.-

    The FRC isn’t exactly for Democrats. I think Gingrich was also on one of those shows saying this wasn’t investigated because the GOP didn’t want to seem homophobic.

    Comment by Carl — October 2, 2006 @ 9:18 pm - October 2, 2006

  21. Perhaps the Democrats have learned what the Republicans have known for some time: Homophobia wins elections.

    Comment by Chase — October 2, 2006 @ 9:23 pm - October 2, 2006

  22. You have lost it. Foley was “Set Up?” How? He is responsible for his own actions. It is his own fault he sends explicit messages to pages.
    And:
    “But in going after Mark Foley, the further result has been a widespread impression across America that all gay men are pedophillic predators”

    It needs to be investigated regardless. Newt Gingrich can harp all he wants about how investigating Foley could be “gay bashing”… a smear of gays,as e suggests gay people don’t want allegations of predatory behavior investigated. It would be reprehensible if people covered up Foley’s actions to help gay people, just like it is reprehensible to cover it up to help GOP electoral chances.

    What gay people have to do is explain that we are NOT all pedophillic predators. Something you don’t help with comments like:

    “We have to remind ourselves, the only thing out of this sordid tale that we do know is that gay Congressmen do seem to have a lot of problems. ”

    That statement is irresponsible. What is so wrong with Kolbe? Or Baldwin? And why do you specify “the only thing” we know? Or why we have to remind ourselves of it? It is not even true.

    Comment by Also from Michigan — October 2, 2006 @ 9:55 pm - October 2, 2006

  23. Wow,
    This post makes it sound like you are blaming a “Vast Left Wing Conspiracy”….

    Comment by keogh — October 2, 2006 @ 9:59 pm - October 2, 2006

  24. #8: “So how did Mike and John get them to go along with the cover-up?”

    Easy, they had pictures – maybe even video (eeeewwwwwwww) – of Denny and Bohner in flagrante delicto with some of the pages themselves. After all, Denny was once a school wrestling coach around whom rumors swirled. Wayne Madsen exposed this some time back IIRC.

    Seriously, these attempts – see Drudge for example – to shift the blame to the pages themselves and even others via a tin-foil conspiracy is standard GOP M.O. these days. They simply are incapable of taking responsibility for their never-ending screwups. It’s really breathtaking but I have to admit Bruce and the other Foley/GOP apologists here have it down to a science!

    By all means, bring on a full investigation by an independent prosecutor. Already we are hearing that CREW provided the emails to the authorities months ago http://tinyurl.com/njfmx ; perhaps political pressure was initiated to slow any investigation.

    I also think there may have actually been more than emails and IM going on as witnessed by the cryptic reference to San Diego in one of the IM’s.

    So yes, let’s focus on an investigation of the GOP Congressional leadership over child molesting and coverup for the next few weeks until the election. Please oh please yes!!!

    Comment by Ian — October 2, 2006 @ 10:12 pm - October 2, 2006

  25. What gay people have to do is explain that we are NOT all pedophillic predators. Something you don’t help with comments like…

    …calling raunchy communications with a 16-year old “pedophilia”. A 16-year old is too young for this sort of thing, yes, but “CHILD”? No way.

    Comment by Frank IBC — October 2, 2006 @ 10:20 pm - October 2, 2006

  26. Funny, they don’t call a 16-year old a “child” when one demands an abortion.

    Comment by Frank IBC — October 2, 2006 @ 10:21 pm - October 2, 2006

  27. I have such a smile on my face now. You conservative folks are so self-righteous when it comes to Liberals/Democrats. When it comes to conservatives though and this kind of thing happens, you fall all over yourselves to heap your support on them. The response here to Jack Abramoff comes particularly to mind. Now, you try to come up with some kind of conspiracy that blames the democrats. Here’s a good one: I bet Democrats secretly picked good looking male pages to tease closeted republican congressmen into going after them. yeah, yeah, that’s it.

    Let’s face it, the self-righteous hypocrisy of the Republican is catching up with itself pretty fast.

    Frankly, if Foley was simply a closeted guy who didn’t try to engage himself with underage guys and wasn’t involved as an advocate for exploited children, I’d probably have a little sympathy for him.

    Comment by Kevin — October 2, 2006 @ 10:25 pm - October 2, 2006

  28. I’m sorry Kevin, who was heaping support on Foley?

    Oh yeah, that would be NO ONE.

    What world are you living in? The entire Republican party and the rightside of the blogosphere condemned Foley from the start.

    Where I blame Democrats is trying to make this out to be more than one man’s horrible mistake.

    Comment by Rightwingsparkle — October 2, 2006 @ 10:49 pm - October 2, 2006

  29. #25 and #28

    Frank IBC: Bruce brought up the Pedophillia comment, not me. I’m not interested in whether or not he is a dictionary definition pedophile. All I know is that a 52 year old hitting on a 16 year old is wrong.

    Rightwingsparkle: The problem is, even the tame emails are bad news. Asking how old you are, talking about meeting the friend, noting that he has a great body or acts mature for his age and asking about birthday presents and pictures are all warning signs. And it is silly to pretend otherwise.

    Comment by Also from Michigan — October 2, 2006 @ 11:10 pm - October 2, 2006

  30. –That statement is irresponsible. What is so wrong with Kolbe? Or Baldwin? And why do you specify “the only thing” we know? Or why we have to remind ourselves of it? It is not even true. —

    I was surprised by that statement, especially because it came right below a paragraph about if Democrats did this they helped further negative stereotypes about gay men.

    I don’t remember ever hearing any problems about Kolbe, or Tammy Baldwin.

    And I thought a lot of gay conservatives have always believed the Democratic Party likes to gay-bait or has homophobic tendencies. If we use that logic, then that means they would be pleased if more people believe gays are predators or creepy.

    Comment by Carl — October 2, 2006 @ 11:40 pm - October 2, 2006

  31. Would this have been better or worse if Foley was targeting 16-year-old girl?

    It’s kind of odd situation isn’t it? for Republicans to be defended because they were protecting a closeted gay, and then claiming Democrats are anti-gay? Did we fall into a mirror universe?

    Comment by Elais — October 2, 2006 @ 11:47 pm - October 2, 2006

  32. What I find intriguing is that Foley doesn’t seem to have had any sexual contact with any of the young men (yes, that is the correct term for teenagers prior to going to college).

    Now don’t get me wrong – stalking a teenager is wrong. I don’t care if it’s Debra LaFavre or Mary Kay LaTourneu or Gerry Studds. Once you start putting the moves on a teen who can’t even vote yet, you are asking for serious trouble, even if it is consensual. In certain states, consensual sex with a minor is still considered statutory rape.

    But let’s look at the situation objectively. Foley went after some twinks. Check.

    However, there is no evidence to the fact that (a) he had sex with the young men or (b) threatened or coerced them in any way to either lie about their chit-chats or (c) used the power of his office to silence any of the people in Congress or the page program to hush things up. If there IS proof of this, the FBI investigation will bring them to light.

    Furthermore, let me hypothesize about these IMs that were “saved” by the page in question who later turned them in to a Capitol Hill staffer.

    Who on earth saves and prints out IMs? Well, let me speak from experience:

    1. You save/print them for future reference if you want to go back and refute something that was said in the heat of the moment.
    2. You save/print them if you know that you want your side of the discussion to be saved for a future exchange.
    3. (And this is the ringer) You save/print them if you intend to go after someone and need proof in doing so.

    Yes, I speak from experience. And no, I will not go into too much detail. Suffice to say that I was being “set up” by someone in our community and it turned out that he was doing this with a lot of other guys.

    Well, guess what – when I took the IMs and my side of the story to the press, they didn’t want to hear it. Why? Because – and I’m quoting the reporter here – “we don’t want to report anything negative about a gay man because then all the Bible-thumpers will want to take this to the next level.”

    So if anyone doesn’t believe there is a media agenda, here’s Exhibit A.

    Back to Foley:

    If I were a page and I knew the goods on Foley, EVEN IF HE DIDN”T LAY A FINGER ON ME, and I was either the son of a partisan hack or wanted to get a step-up in my career, I could use the saved IMs to my advantage.

    Any 16- or 17-year-old who is smart enough to get a position on Capitol Hill and is the least bit politically active will definitely try to work this to their advantage. Now that I think about it, the whole thing seems like a big scam.

    However, the facts remain: Foley fell in the trap. He went after a minor got what he deserved. The question is – did he even have a physical contact with this page?

    If people are going to say that IMs are just as bad as a BJ, then we have a serious problem here.

    That’s my take. Do with it what you will.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — October 3, 2006 @ 12:19 am - October 3, 2006

  33. Bruce, I trust you will take a moment to condemn this reprehensible statement from someone I actually like(d) and respect(ed), Ben Stein, from a rather homophobic (spattered with the usual trite “some of my best friends are gay” as cover) rant.

    The money quote:

    I hope it won’t come as a surprise to anyone that a big part of male homosexual behavior is interest in young boys.

    I’m more disgusted in this comment than any of the other crap folding around this story.

    http://www.americanprowler.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=10434

    Comment by dave — October 3, 2006 @ 12:20 am - October 3, 2006

  34. #33 – And Dave, would it be less offensive if it came from Jim McGreevey or George Michael?

    There is a series of books put out in gay bookstores called “Handjobs.” They have titles like “Do Me, Daddy” and “My Foster Father’s Seduction.”

    Of course, the inside of the book jacket throws in the “disclaimer” that “the scenarios inside this book are purely for fantasy purposes and it is assumed that the ‘boys’ in these stories are at least 18 years of age.”

    Uh-huh.

    If that’s the case, I know a bridge in Brooklyn I can sell you.

    And did you ever see the 1990s film “For a Lost Soldier,” about the liberation of Holland by the Allies? A young (and I mean YOUNG) pubescent teen is seduced by a Canadian soldier. I had a boyfriend who took me to see it once, and I was disgusted. But get this – the entire theatre was packed with same-sex couples, sighing and looking on and wishing they were on that screen…doing it.

    So before you rush to condemn Ben Stein, take a good, hard look around at our culture. And I mean a GOOD look.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — October 3, 2006 @ 12:34 am - October 3, 2006

  35. Why aren’t you defending the kid?

    Why the hell should the kid get a pass? I’ve seen people set up by kids before and “sexual harrassment” is nothing more than a tool for getting rid of people you don’t like these days. I nearly got nailed by a kid with issues myself. Fortunately for me he was incapable of keeping his story straight.

    Screw “defending” the kid. This whole shootin’ match isn’t about “protecting the children” anyway. If you’re going to have a fair investigation, the kid needs to be scrutinized as well.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 3, 2006 @ 1:06 am - October 3, 2006

  36. And what’s funny is this…..those instant messages are allegedly from years ago.

    If the Democrat puppets like IanRaj are going to whine that “leadership should have acted” and that “someone should have reported this”, how about the person who’s been sitting on those for so long?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 3, 2006 @ 1:19 am - October 3, 2006

  37. #32: “I speak from experience.”

    Well, that would explain your earlier freudian slip 😉 . Go ahead, defend your comrade Foley and shift the blame to others. It’s the GOP M.O. like I said before. Well, this time it just isn’t going to work. There’s more to come out I’m sure. Foley was apparently ferrying young pages around DC in his BMW and I’m sure you know how easy it would be for Foley to slip his hand off the stick shift ever so accidently and…. The IM’s certainly show he was trying to set up what can only be considered as a tryst and may have already had one in San Diego. His lawyer claims he didn’t have sex with any of the pages but we all have learned to carefully parse such statements.

    But the real scandal is how the GOP House leadership did nothing to protect other young people from this sexual predator. Shame on them all.

    Comment by Ian — October 3, 2006 @ 1:36 am - October 3, 2006

  38. #36: “how about the person who’s been sitting on those for so long?”

    Another vile attempt to shift the blame to the kids. Poor Mark Foley. Victim. How disgusting yet how typical of today’s GOP. I’ll bet you blame the victims of rape for enticing the rapist.

    Comment by Ian — October 3, 2006 @ 1:42 am - October 3, 2006

  39. You know, there seem to be a lot of nuances about this story, particularly with the difference between the e-mails and the instant messages. But this close to an election, voters tend to just see the big picture and ignore the nuance. That could be a problem here for the GOP.

    Comment by Chase — October 3, 2006 @ 1:47 am - October 3, 2006

  40. -So before you rush to condemn Ben Stein, take a good, hard look around at our culture.-

    Is a crowd in a movie theater really a great sign of an entire culture?

    Some gay men may have some thing for young guys, as some straight men have some thing for young girls, but I don’t think that’s emblematic of an entire culture.

    Comment by Carl — October 3, 2006 @ 1:56 am - October 3, 2006

  41. ALERT – ALERT – ALERT

    THE WASHINGTON TIMES CALLS FOR SPEAKER HASTERT’S RESIGNATION

    Yea, you know what? That’s a dangerous argument for the Republicans to be making this close to an election. For if they start saying the leadership must go, the voters will recognize that and simply make the switch themselves.

    The way this is snowballing, it’s getting real close to being lights out for the Republican majority.

    Comment by Chase — October 3, 2006 @ 2:02 am - October 3, 2006

  42. I could care less about the timing of these revelations. And I don’t really care who passed the information to ABC or what their motives were or how they obtained the Instant Message texts.

    The bottom line is that Mark Foley is a disgrace. He violated the trust of the people of his congressional district who elected him. He violated the trust of the parents of Congressional Pages who sent their children off to Washington for experiences quite different than sexually explicit messages from congressmen.

    So what if Democrats didn’t demand that Congressman Gary Studds resign. So what if Bill Clinton got off easy. As the party that promotes “values” we Republicans have an obligation to hold our elected officials to a higher standard.

    I seldom agree with Michael Reagan, Bay Buchanan or the Washington Times, but I side with their demands that the Speaker should resign. And others in the House GOP leadership ought to step down. They all knew — perhaps as long as a year ago — that Foley posed a problem. Yet they did little or nothing. It seems keeping Foley’s district in Republican hands was more important than morals and ethics.

    By the way, about the same time Congressman Studds got in trouble, a Republican Congressman from Maryland, Bob Baumann, was found to be involved sexually with a young male page. He resigned in disgrace and his wife, Carol, divorced him.

    Comment by Trace Phelps — October 3, 2006 @ 2:08 am - October 3, 2006

  43. Another vile attempt to shift the blame to the kids. Poor Mark Foley. Victim. How disgusting yet how typical of today’s GOP. I’ll bet you blame the victims of rape for enticing the rapist.

    Three words, IanRaj: “Duke rape scandal”.

    Remember that Mike Nifong is a Democrat.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 3, 2006 @ 2:12 am - October 3, 2006

  44. I seldom agree with Michael Reagan, Bay Buchanan or the Washington Times, but I side with their demands that the Speaker should resign.

    Of course you do, Trace, because it’s convenient.

    But perhaps you also agree with their reasoning that it’s because “everyone knew” Foley was gay and that “everyone knows” that gay men are pedophiles, so the Republicans should not have let Foley anywhere near the pages.

    Consider closely these marriages of convenience, especially when it involves people who have been systematically removed from the areas of power by both voters and elected officials because they’re loony. You may end up shackled to someone who sounded good at the time.

    Also, keep in mind the entire timeline of the matter.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 3, 2006 @ 2:31 am - October 3, 2006

  45. I agree with you, NDT. Bay Buchanan in particular really has no credibility, if you ask me.

    But I am disturbed at some of the attitudes like the editorial in WSJ which basically seems to say Foley wasn’t taken care of sooner because Republicans are afraid of being seen as un-PC on gay issues, and then tried to equate letting Foley stay in power to opposing bans on gay Scoutmasters.

    Some are trying to turn this whole thing into an attack against gays.

    Comment by Carl — October 3, 2006 @ 2:38 am - October 3, 2006

  46. It is an attack against gays, Carl — but mainly because gays have been stupid enough to allow it to be.

    Had the gay community come out and said, “You know, we have no evidence that Foley is gay and Foley himself has never said that he is — so why are you claiming that his pedophilia problem is a result of his being gay? Are you trying to argue that, because Foley is a pedophile, that he’s gay?”

    That would have put the focus squarely back on the problem — and nicely stopped this sort of thing in its tracks.

    But stupidity is to gay activists as water is to terrestrial life — a required element of its existence — and thus the problem; this argument actually sounds plausible because gays themselves are claiming that Foley is gay and that’s why he’s a pedophile.

    Disaffected antigay “conservatives” like Buchanan have pounced on this and are now using it out of some insane belief that demanding the Republican leadership commit hara-kiri will somehow bring THEM back into power.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 3, 2006 @ 2:53 am - October 3, 2006

  47. #44- NDT, your #3 post was so sensible, but this? Who is saying they agree with that, aside from Conservative Spinmeisters who don’t like gays to begin with?

    The pages themselves say they were warned about Foley years ago. We know they knew in 05 that there was a problem with his conduct with the pages. Foley had a problem. Gay people do not.

    You guys are accusing Trace of siding with Buchanan’s (and Gingrich’s) view of gays. Lets turn the question around. Do you think Hastert, Boehner, et. al. did nothing because they didn’t want to appear anti-gay?

    Do you think that investigating predatory behavior is anti-gay? Does anyone here seriously believe that? That doesn’t even pass the smell test. Plus, they don’t appear to have any problems appearing antigay when they bring up legislation like the FMA. Finally, does anyone here think the public would see the investigation as antigay? Any person who decried it would be laughed at and shouted down.

    And if the WSJ is endorsing that (I assume it is the article: “Paging Mr. Hastert Could a gay Congressman be quarantined?” and I don’t subscribe) the WSJ should be ashamed of themselves.

    And Am I missing something, but when have conservatives thought Michael Reagan was looney? (I’ll grant you the other two).

    And I gotta tell you, Hastert’s behavior since this has broken hasn’t been sterling either. Why go exclusively to Shimkus to “reform” the page system? He’s one of the guys who failed to uncover this before. He was reportedly the only person on the page board who knew about the emails.

    This was kept internal before, and look where we are now. If Hastert wanted to do this seriously and honestly, he’d involve everyone, instead of keeping the other members out of the loop.

    Comment by Also from Michigan — October 3, 2006 @ 3:35 am - October 3, 2006

  48. Yes, that’s the WSJ editorial, AfM. I was shocked by that editorial.

    -But stupidity is to gay activists as water is to terrestrial life — a required element of its existence — and thus the problem; this argument actually sounds plausible because gays themselves are claiming that Foley is gay and that’s why he’s a pedophile.-

    I know some gays, like Andrew Sullivan, have tried to paint a sympathetic portrayal of him because of the closet, but a lot of the national gay groups seem to be silent on this issue.

    Comment by Carl — October 3, 2006 @ 4:06 am - October 3, 2006

  49. “Psychologist Robert Godwin” and his friends and audience look like some real winners over there. Nice company to keep…

    Comment by sean — October 3, 2006 @ 4:20 am - October 3, 2006

  50. #46. Putting quotes around “conservative” for Buchanan is rather silly. There are many, many more Buchanan conservatives than there are gay conservatives. Just by numbers, their quotes around “conservative” for gays are more fitting.

    I’m totally with you on the Foley not being gay bit–because he isn’t gay. He’s a closet teen stalker. Perhaps he’s a homosexual, but he is not gay. No one in this community would actually use, say, “do i make you horny?” in serious sex banter. At least I hope not. There’s no serious, open, honest link to the gay community on his part–no integration in gay culture and networks–and he obviously has psychosexual issues to deal with, issues that are distinct from anything related to gay.

    Finally, your blathering about gay leaders and groups carries a tone that makes a reader want to dismiss everything you have to say. For example, who are these leaders and where are their reactions? From what I’ve seen so far, the national gay and lesbian groups have been off the radar on this. And that might be because they, like you and me, don’t see Foley as gay. (He might even be at an ex-gay camp by now, with RuPaul as activities director.) The constant digging and blaming and whining about gay leaders and organizations is tiresome.

    Comment by sean — October 3, 2006 @ 4:35 am - October 3, 2006

  51. “So what if Democrats didn’t demand that Congressman Gary Studds resign. So what if Bill Clinton got off easy. As the party that promotes “values” we Republicans have an obligation to hold our elected officials to a higher standard.”

    WHAT ARE THOSE ‘VALUES’?

    “I seldom agree with Michael Reagan, Bay Buchanan or the Washington Times, but I side with their demands that the Speaker should resign. And others in the House GOP leadership ought to step down. They all knew — perhaps as long as a year ago — that Foley posed a problem. Yet they did little or nothing. It seems keeping Foley’s district in Republican hands was more important than morals and ethics.”

    THERE YOU HAVE IT: KEEPING DISTRICTS IN REPUBLICAN HANDS. The values, morals, ethics thing is a smokescreen. It is ironic that the values agenda, which has been so good for seating Republcians in power, might very well now unseat the Republicans for President Bush’s last two years. Waterboard them all!!

    Comment by sean — October 3, 2006 @ 4:40 am - October 3, 2006

  52. #47
    The pages themselves say they were warned about Foley years ago.

    Are you sure? Last I saw it was one page who said he was warned then when others turned up and said they weren’t, he had to clarify his statement….on Facebook.com. Al-ABC got their soundbite though and that’s all that matters.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 3, 2006 @ 6:01 am - October 3, 2006

  53. [Comment deleted.  This commenter has been banned.]

    Comment by raj — October 3, 2006 @ 6:17 am - October 3, 2006

  54. [Comment deleted.  This commenter has been banned.]

    Comment by raj — October 3, 2006 @ 7:16 am - October 3, 2006

  55. [Comment deleted.  This commenter has been banned.]

    Comment by raj — October 3, 2006 @ 7:17 am - October 3, 2006

  56. #40 – “Is a crowd in a movie theater really a great sign of an entire culture?”

    Two words, Carl – BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN.

    Checkmate.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — October 3, 2006 @ 10:23 am - October 3, 2006

  57. -Two words, Carl – BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN.-

    That film was marketed more to straight women than to gay men. But, if the movie was loved mainly by gay men, then at least that would show gay men don’t have some need for movies involving an underage boy.

    Comment by Carl — October 3, 2006 @ 10:41 am - October 3, 2006

  58. #53: “Foley knows or at least suspects that there are more emails and more IM logs that have not been made public.”

    I think it’s far more than that: the IM’s we’ve seen show pretty conclusively that Foley was interested in physical contact and I’d be willing to bet he scored on occasion perhaps in San Diego where, IIRC, the age of consent is 18.

    The GOP House leadership was AT BEST stupidly negligent and more concerned with the political consequences than the wellbeing of the pages. That is intolerable and ought to result in the whole lot getting the boot.

    Comment by Ian — October 3, 2006 @ 10:49 am - October 3, 2006

  59. Carl, you just contradicted your first premise. If something that is mass consumed by gay men was not marketed to them (supposedly) in the first place, doesn’t it reflect upon them as a whole?

    And furthermore, nobody has come forward stating that they had a physical relationship with Foley. Unlike Studds, Frank, McGreevey, Clinton et al.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — October 3, 2006 @ 11:00 am - October 3, 2006

  60. Also – isn’t it funny that the same people who thinks that the page should be given a pass were the same ones who passed judgment on people like Kathleen Willey, Juanita Broaddrick and Paula Jones?

    Case in point – James Carville at one point said that “if you drag a dollar bill through a trailer park, guess what you’ll end up catching.”

    Also – let’s not forget the speculation on the MSM’s part when it came to Golan Cipel of McGreeveygate. Did he do it for money? Is he gay? Did he do it to embarass or entrap the then-governor?

    Based upon the above rhetoric, I would love to see if this page or other young men were engaging in some kind of entrapment. No matter how badly the RATS and the MSM want to paint these pages as “little boys,” that dog don’t hunt. Most smart high-school kids know how to work the system.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — October 3, 2006 @ 11:07 am - October 3, 2006

  61. #59 — Or Mel Reynolds, who was pardoned by Bill Clinton after banging an underage female intern. Right after Clinton pardoned 15 FALN terrorists (because he was SO concerned with terrorism during his administration).

    Comment by Nobody — October 3, 2006 @ 11:08 am - October 3, 2006

  62. #60: “isn’t it funny that the same people who thinks that the page should be given a pass were the same ones who passed judgment on people like Kathleen Willey, Juanita Broaddrick and Paula Jones?”

    No, what’s “funny” – and not in the humorous sense – is someone like you who equates children with adults when it comes to responsibility for sexual interactions.

    Comment by Ian — October 3, 2006 @ 12:50 pm - October 3, 2006

  63. Well, ianrajsockpuppetevabraun, if a 16-year-old is considered a “child” in your book, then all things being equal you should (a) be against the distribution of condoms in public schools, (b) be in favor of parental consent in the case of minors getting abortions and (c) eliminate all public funding for schools which have GLBT programs since “children” cannot be responsible for their sexual orientation.

    If you disagree with any of the above statements, then you are truly a SPH (Scribe, Pharisee and Hypocrite).

    Checkmate.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — October 3, 2006 @ 12:54 pm - October 3, 2006

  64. And GP/GPW – thank you for banning rajiansockpuppet from the board. Now go after their alter egos as well.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — October 3, 2006 @ 12:55 pm - October 3, 2006

  65. #63 — You assume the lefties really give a shit over whether a teenage boy was molested by a middle-aged pervert. They don’t care. They don’t even really believe it’s wrong.

    But, they know that people who vote for Republicans believe it’s wrong, because people who vote for Republicans believe in things like values, morals, and ethics. Lefties don’t care about any of those things, but they know conservatives do.

    The only thing they care about is attacking conservatives and Republicans. Democrats are allowed to molest or sexually assault whoever and whatever they want. (e.g. Bill Clinton, Mel Reynolds, Gerry Studds) with only minor consequences.

    Comment by Nobody — October 3, 2006 @ 1:07 pm - October 3, 2006

  66. Nobody, that’s sad and unfortunately, so true. The RAT mantra is “do anything, say anything, destroy anyone that keeps us from attaining power.”

    As if it is their birthright.

    Sheesh.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — October 3, 2006 @ 1:58 pm - October 3, 2006

  67. #64: “And GP/GPW – thank you for banning rajiansockpuppet from the board.”

    Exactly whom are you talking about? Please leave me out of it. As I have always said, if the hosts of this blog wish me to leave, all they have to do is ask and I’ll do so. No need for some “banning” melodrama.

    Comment by Ian — October 3, 2006 @ 2:06 pm - October 3, 2006

  68. #52 Yes, that is correct. But telling people he is “odd” and not to get caught up in how nice he is *is* warning them. They’re not going to come out and say he has a penchant for hitting on them, or even to stay away from him. They wanted to warn the kids, but they also wanted to protect Foley. That’s also why they didn’t inform the rest of the Page Board. Capito and whoever the Dem is seem to have much sounder heads regarding inappropriate and suspicious conduct.

    Comment by Also from Michigan — October 3, 2006 @ 2:47 pm - October 3, 2006

  69. #48 – Yup, they are stupid, They should also be out there explaining this is not a gay thing, particularly since the antigay groups such as the FRC are out there spewing nonsense. I also saw Sullivan’s explanation about the closet. I agree with it, but I also think it was too soft on foley, or excusing him. Somebody emailed him saying as much, and I agree with that as well.

    I have also read the WSJ editorial. It is despicable. First, they say if they seem to minimize the emails, not mentioning the friend Foley met, and then they do something even worse: by blaming today’s “PC culture” for the scandal. That is nonsense. You can be tolerant of gay people and still investigate suspicious emails. They are not mutually exclusive. And I don’t think anyone (or anyone with a grain of credibility) believes otherwise.

    And when they say:”But if that’s the standard, we should all admit we are returning to a rule of conduct that our cultural elite long ago abandoned as intolerant.”

    They should again be ashamed of themselves. It is a false argument. What they are really saying is that we should return to a time when all gay people were automatically under suspicion, because they suggest that the “PC culture” thinks nobody should be investigated regardless of their conduct. That’s simly not true.

    Finally, They pretend that the only way to resolve this would be to “quarantine” Foley… the Idea that they shouldn’t investigate further into his behavior, asking current and former pages if they have had problem with any member of congress seems to have totally escaped the WSJ’s mind.

    Comment by Also from Michigan — October 3, 2006 @ 3:07 pm - October 3, 2006

  70. It wasn’t forty years ago that gays were excluded from high-security positions at the FBI, CIA, Pentagon et al because they were considered a security risk. Not because they were less patriotic than their straight counterparts; it was because they were more likely to be blackmailed regarding their orientation and therefore pose a security risk.

    And for the record, I don’t mind any and all pages to be questioned UNDER OATH about the conduct of Congressmen and women towards them. I would say that there are both dems and GOP’ers who are just one phone call away from having their own Foley moment.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — October 3, 2006 @ 3:55 pm - October 3, 2006

  71. #70 I’m not sure If you are responding to my comment but I agree with you, Although I’d say the FBI, etc were wrong, and that the culture assumed gay people should be closeted (and therefore blackmailable) and that was wrong too.

    I don’t have a problem with putting the pages under oath, but to start with, I’d investigate informally.

    In any investigation, the investigators ask questions before they put people under oath, or make public accusations or prosecute people.

    Comment by Also from Michigan — October 3, 2006 @ 4:19 pm - October 3, 2006

  72. Do you think Hastert, Boehner, et. al. did nothing because they didn’t want to appear anti-gay?

    No, because that is again based on the fundamental assumption here that Foley is gay.

    I think they reacted exactly as good managers should when presented with inappropriate behavior by someone who wanted them to know, but didn’t want them to make a big deal out of it — as the page’s family apparently did.

    Moreover, now that I think about it, the single best way to handle this would be to take advantage of the fact that Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats apparently knew about these emails and instant messages months ago, but held off on releasing them until the last minute — and then were stupid enough to claim that Republicans didn’t act quickly enough.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 3, 2006 @ 5:01 pm - October 3, 2006

  73. I was waiting to see if any of the leftards would protest that my #65 was unfair or inaccurate. I guess not.

    Comment by Nobody — October 3, 2006 @ 9:25 pm - October 3, 2006

  74. Noboby

    Your #65 post is absurd. You claim that the Democrats would allow molesters to do whatever they want, bullshit. What exactly have the Republicans been doing with Foley for the past five years? Letting him do whatever he wants.

    Rightard.

    Comment by Elais — October 3, 2006 @ 10:55 pm - October 3, 2006

  75. Of course they would, Elais.

    You see, that “five years” claim is based on the recollections of some former pages that they were warned about Foley.

    It stretches the bounds of belief to think that they didn’t tell the Democrats, or that the Democrats weren’t aware of that fact.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 3, 2006 @ 11:04 pm - October 3, 2006

  76. Foley was wrong. If democrats played with this in order to garner votes in the upcoming election, they were wrong. If anyone knew anything about Foley sending these disgusting emails to underage kids and did nothing about it, then those people need to be charged also. Republican or democrat – they are all letting us down. Bottom line, there are no saints in our leadership. They are paid to play. They do what they want, when they want and they broadcast what they want us to know. And what the heck is up with parents who prostitute their children as these pages’ parents do? And what about the pages? Our government is filled with corrupt politicians and the American voter is too lazy and too content in their own little soccer, golf, go to work, starbucks world to do anything about it. As long as nothing upsets their little applecart then everything is just peachy keen. Lord help the idiot who would ever ever send any emails such as these to my child. I would have to take care of it because surely our elected officials do not.

    Comment by Sandra — October 4, 2006 @ 1:51 am - October 4, 2006

  77. “but didn’t want them to make a big deal out of it — as the page’s family apparently did.”

    I have a few problems with that, primarily because it doesn’t make sense. If they didn’t want to make a big deal about it, why bring it to Alexander in the first place. They could have sat on it and not told anyone. I’m also not sure why they couldn’t remain in the background while the investigation continued.

    On Pelosi, I’m not sure where that gets you, or where the conspiracy gets you. All that reinforces the notion that the Republicans kept it internal, which we know is true. And if Pelosi hears about this, what are the chances the GOP didn’t know? And simply asserting she knew about this is worse politically than having HRC insist Foley isn’t gay.

    Comment by Also from Michigan — October 4, 2006 @ 4:01 am - October 4, 2006

  78. If what Elais says is true, why did Democrats re-elect Gerry Studds six times after he went a lot farther than sending dirty emails to a House page? Why did Bill Clinton pardon Mel Reynolds after he “won the lottery” with his House pages?

    It seems Dems really don’t give a damn when the perpetrator is one of their own.

    Comment by Nobody — October 4, 2006 @ 7:14 am - October 4, 2006

  79. You see, we don’t have to speculate on how Democrats would have handled a Foley situation, because they’ve had two of their own do much worse… and they treated it as no big deal.

    Comment by Nobody — October 4, 2006 @ 7:15 am - October 4, 2006

  80. #72 –
    Peterbody –
    You have proven why rightists are not fit for leadership or even debate.
    You make a post that you know is false because you hope to see it refuted.
    Then you make your arguments completely childish by using the word: “Leftards”
    Nobody and Peter H. are the same person: A parody of all rightists.

    Comment by keogh — October 4, 2006 @ 9:47 am - October 4, 2006

  81. #80 — In other words, keogh can’t answer the argument about Gerry Studds and Mel Reynolds.

    Comment by Nobody — October 4, 2006 @ 11:18 am - October 4, 2006

  82. #80 – 401kplan, I am SOMEBODY, not “Nobody.” Unlike ianraj or you and lester, I am not a sockpuppet. Just ask Bruce or Dan.

    However, I am flattered that you think this is a “vast right-wing conspiracy.” You must have spent too much time reading Shrillary’s ghostwritten book…

    Also, you messed up – AGAIN. Number 72 was written by ND30, not me. And he is “somebody” as well.

    You are batting 0-4 on all those comments you made, kiddo. And frankly, your whiny arrogance is getting on my nerves.

    Go way in the back and sit down.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — October 4, 2006 @ 11:38 am - October 4, 2006

  83. If they didn’t want to make a big deal about it, why bring it to Alexander in the first place.

    Because they wanted something to be done about it — namely, Alexander to be made aware, Foley to be warned, and for Foley to no longer have contact with their son. Doing it any other way — like going to the media — would likely have compromised their privacy.

    On Pelosi, I’m not sure where that gets you, or where the conspiracy gets you. All that reinforces the notion that the Republicans kept it internal, which we know is true. And if Pelosi hears about this, what are the chances the GOP didn’t know? And simply asserting she knew about this is worse politically than having HRC insist Foley isn’t gay.

    Simple.

    Pelosi’s argument is that the Republicans were negligent because they knew and didn’t do anything about it.

    Since she knew and did nothing about it, that would make HER negligent as well.

    If she tries to claim that the emails weren’t enough for her to act……then why did she demand action from the Republicans?

    Queen Pelosi was derailed when Boehner was intelligent enough to deflect her attempt to make this a House investigation — and when Hastert referred it to the FBI, which unlike the Ethics Committee, is going to look at this from the standpoint of multiple parties.

    What will eventually come out is that Pelosi and her puppets knew about the emails at the same time Republican leadership did, or even before — PLUS had the IMs, which are even more damning.

    But she left Foley to molest children because immediately acting would have had little to no political impact in late 2005.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 4, 2006 @ 5:27 pm - October 4, 2006

  84. [Deleted for violating terms of commenting at GayPatriot.]

    Comment by JonathanG — October 4, 2006 @ 6:34 pm - October 4, 2006

  85. This just in, the “weblog” that busted Foley, total Democrat put-up job: http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2006/10/the-bogus-blog-behind-foleys-fall.php

    (Note: Democrat scheming aside, Foley is still a scumbag who should be tied to a goalpost and beaten by a JV football squad … not pardoned like Democrat Mel Reynolds, or re-elected like Democrat Gerry Studds).

    Comment by V the K — October 4, 2006 @ 7:54 pm - October 4, 2006

  86. psh, you guys are fine with leftist conspiracies, but there is little mention of the fishing expedition of Kenneth Starr… At least Clinton took advantage of an ‘adult’; you need to take yer lumps…

    Comment by Francis — October 4, 2006 @ 9:41 pm - October 4, 2006

  87. “psh, you guys are fine with leftist conspiracies, but there is little mention of the fishing expedition of Kenneth Starr… At least Clinton took advantage of an ‘adult’; you need to take yer lumps…

    Oh let ’em whine, Francis. It’s great entertainment to watch them become the victim of their own style.

    Seeing Bruce cite the corroboration of a psychologist who thinks gay men are inherently attracted to adolescents is priceless. He’s so blinded by his distaste for the left that he’ll even enlist the help of someone who thinks he’s pathological by nature.

    Comment by JonathanG — October 4, 2006 @ 10:08 pm - October 4, 2006

  88. You do not normally buy into conspiracy theories? Your whole article seems to be one hysterical attempt to flush out a possible “left wing” conspiracy behind what is essentially a straightforward case of sexual harassment and this whole mess.
    Let’s have the decency to condemn this for the crime that it is……..

    Comment by JK — October 5, 2006 @ 1:21 am - October 5, 2006

  89. As I read the Foley Transcript, I was kind of be-foggled by the boy’s fetish with casts, and Catholic school girl uniforms. To me it sounds like he is suggesting that he was bound. The cast fetish suggests having some part of the body immobilized, and the school girl uniforms suggest rule and order. Was the boy bound to perform Foley’s outing, and further, was he constrained by rule and order? Well !

    The boy didn’t seem all that interestent in Foley, as he had plenty of attivities to keep him busy, and sleepy. I hate to think that it was a ploy the OUT Foley, especially during this very sensitive time, but it just seems that way to me from reading the transcript.

    The boy also made it clear that his Mother was not computer savy, suggesting that their conversations were very safe. I personaly don’t think that the boy was a boy!
    Perhaphs a sting operation? We see them all the time on TV. The TV is filled with sting operations.

    I just have a gut feeling that it was a sting. Produce the boy, I want to hear the evidence come from his mouth and not IM’s produced electronically.

    Comment by JLGAINES — October 5, 2006 @ 2:03 am - October 5, 2006

  90. 86-87: Foley never touched anybody (as far as we know) and never had to say “You better put some ice on that.” But it’s interesting how you on the left are making a Republican who resigned over inappropriate chat morally equivalent to Pradetor-in-Chief Clinton, worse than Mel Reynolds (“won the lottery” with an underaged staffer, pardoned by Clinton) or Gerry Studds (had sex with an underage staffer, never resigned, re-elected six times by Democrats). Apparently, sexual predators can feel right at home in the Democrat Party.

    Your legacy is so much to be proud of. No wonder you guys have to pile onto a Republican who, as far as we know, didn’t touch anybody.

    Comment by V the K — October 5, 2006 @ 5:32 am - October 5, 2006

  91. And, I reiterate, Foley is a creepy pederast, and kudos to the GOP for getting rid of him, albeit belatedly. But history shows that if Foley had a D after his name, he could have gotten away with a lot more and still been welcome in his party.

    Comment by V the K — October 5, 2006 @ 5:36 am - October 5, 2006

  92. And, I reiterate, Foley is a creepy pederast, and kudos to the GOP for getting rid of him, albeit belatedly. But history shows that if Foley had a D after his name, he could have gotten away with a lot more and still been welcome in his party.

    We deeply appreciate your “yes, but…”, V.

    Um, when did the GOP “get rid” of Foley? He was given a pass for 3 years, according to Fordham. And he resigned when he was confronted by the media. The Republicans did nothing to “get rid” of him. And that is the issue.

    That Bill Clinton, or any other Dem didn’t resign but chose to endure public scrutiny and legal proceedings, has nothing whatsoever to do with the Foley case. Why should aa man whose offense, lying about a blow job, quit the presidency if he’s willing to undergo a trial? Why should Studds have resigned if he was willing to undergo public scrutiny?

    You just keep avoiding the salient fact: The Republican leadership PROTECTED Foley, who is now engaged in representing himself as a victim of a psychological disorder.

    Comment by JonathanG — October 5, 2006 @ 9:00 am - October 5, 2006

  93. The salient fact is that the Democrat party has no problem when its own members are sexual predators.

    Comment by V the K — October 5, 2006 @ 9:18 am - October 5, 2006

  94. Uh, neither has the Republican party shown any concern….until the media exposed it. Then Mr. Foley admitted his wrongdoing and resigned. Well, he blamed his past and drinking, but he did resign.

    And then there was the collective of Republican moralists who brought Bill Clinton to trial — and turned out to all be philanderers themselves. Oh, but wait,, that wasn’t about sex. It was about lying and a coverup. But the Foley case isn’t about a coverup. No wait…

    The Dems you cite chose to undergo public scrutiny and contest the charges against them.. Apparently you think we should presume guilt and that an accusation alone is adequate to require resignation.

    Personally, I couldn’t care less if Foley resigned or remained in office and chose to contest the accusations. What, for the 1000th time, is reprehensible is the leadership’s protection of someone they knew to be sexually harassing teenagers. Many in the Republican party feel the same way and realize bringing up Clinton or Studds only looks like evasion of the more important issue of a cover-up.

    Comment by JonathanG — October 5, 2006 @ 9:35 am - October 5, 2006

  95. Personally, I couldn’t care less if Foley resigned or remained in office and chose to contest the accusations.

    That’s because this is just a political game to you. You don’t give a damn about right and wrong, and you don’t give a damn about real people whose lives were affected. In other words, a typical Democrat operative.

    Comment by V the K — October 5, 2006 @ 9:40 am - October 5, 2006

  96. Nice try, V. I don’t give a damn whether Foley chooses to subject himself to public scrutiny as Democrats did or whether he chooses to, um, cut and run. You want him to cut and run because YOU don’t want the full political consequences. It has nothing to do with compassion.

    Mark Foley suffers from a disorder, ephebophilia, which — like pedophilia — typically involves a splitting of awareness, so that the individual can maintain two oppositional styles. This occurs through the process called a reaction formation.

    As Dan argued, he should certainly take responsibility for the injury he did people. But he also deserves compassion for his illness. The fact is that in the world of the typical ephebophile, he seems to have practiced relative restraint.

    Once again: The issue here is the party’s response. It’s not the Democrats’ handling, in an open way, of somethning that occurred 25 years ago. It’s not about Teddy Kennedy’s questionable behavior. What it’s about is the fact that the Republican leadership was informed that a likely ephebophile was sexually harrassing Congressional pages and refused to do anything about it until the media exposed the story. We’ve seen denial, revision and re-revision coming from the leadership.

    The decision to ignore the matter — witness withholding of the information from the Page Committee’s one Democrat — WAS POLITICAL. It’s the Republicans’ game thihs go-round, not the Democrats’ responsibilty because you think TK drowned Mary Jo.

    The fact that I acknowledge the political aspect of this — and I’ve been a bit laconic in my replies because I don’t believe you don’t undertand that this can’t be depoliticized — doesn’t mean that I don’t think Mark Foley suffers and caused suffering.

    It is quite apparent, though, that you want to limit it to a matter of Foley’s behavior. Perhaps you took the same attitude in the Clinton affair, but I doubt it. If you did, good for you, but it doesn’t diminish the political reality resulting from dissembling, as Richard Nixon so completely admitted before his death.

    Comment by JonathanG — October 5, 2006 @ 1:06 pm - October 5, 2006

  97. And nowhere in and if your rambling, semi-coherent responses did you come anywhere near refuting the notion that it’s okay to be a sexual predator if you’re a Democrat.

    Comment by V the K — October 5, 2006 @ 2:51 pm - October 5, 2006

  98. What it’s about is the fact that the Republican leadership was informed that a likely ephebophile was sexually harrassing Congressional pages and refused to do anything about it until the media exposed the story.

    Lying leftist puppet.

    Foley was confronted and ordered to cease email contact with the pages involved — who, in several cases, appear to have been FORMER pages.

    Your theory rests on trying to confuse the emails, which are odd, with the instant messages, which are catastrophic. No evidence exists that says the Republicans had the IMs, but enormous amounts exist that say the Democrats did.

    Furthermore, puppet, there is ample information that shows the Democrats had the emails well before this broke. Why didn’t THEY inform their own member on the Page Committee?

    What we see here is nothing more than a flagrant attempt by Democrats to lie and spin that “children were endangered since people didn’t act” and “we were never told” when the facts are that THEY had the emails in their possession and failed to act — until such time as it would have maximum effect on the fall elections.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 5, 2006 @ 5:16 pm - October 5, 2006

  99. THERE IS A NEW SIGN AT THE “LIBRARY OF CONGRESS”

    PLEASE DO NOT BEND
    THE PAGES OVER….

    Comment by JLGAINES — October 7, 2006 @ 6:48 am - October 7, 2006

  100. […] After Googling her for hours and drinking a Viagra cocktail and listening to my favorite Kenny Rogers CD, I felt weird and a little stalker-ey. You know Mark Foley-ish but with a woman not a page (although I’m sure that some liberal made him do it. Read here). […]

    Pingback by | Tao Of Dan — June 4, 2007 @ 1:12 pm - June 4, 2007

  101. I think the fact that Foley was a major opponent of child pornography and chairman of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children had a lot more to do with it than homophobia. Get a grip(and i dont mean on a little boy) guys

    Comment by sinnerjizm — July 16, 2007 @ 12:46 pm - July 16, 2007

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.