Gay Patriot Header Image

Mary Cheney & “The List”How the Left Uses Gay Individuals in an Attempt to Divide the GOP

It seems that the left has torn a page from the Kerry-Edwards 2004 playbook. Back then, the Democratic nominees for the highest offices in the land attempted to make an issue of the sexuality of the Vice President’s daughter Mary in order to pull social conservatives away from the Bush-Cheney ticket. In successive debates each candidate, first Vice-Presidential nominee John Edwards, then Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry mentioned that Mary Cheney was a lesbian. They thought that many social conservatives wouldn’t vote for a ticket when one of the candidates had a lesbian child.

Despite the failure of this tactic two years ago, leftists are trying to make it work this year, only instead of bringing up the sexuality of a candidate’s child, they’re threatening to “out” gay staffers to prominent Republicans. As Bruce reported earlier today, various gay leftists have been sending copies of the “List” (of gay staffers to leading Republicans) to a variety of social conservative organizations, political allies of the GOP who have a less-than-favorable opinion of homosexuality.

It seems clear they’re doing this to weaken the support of those organizations for the GOP as the mid-term elections approach. If these groups show less enthusiam, Republicans won’t generate the turnout they need in order to hold onto Congress.

Without any concern for the lives of these gay men and women — or even any knowledge of whether these staffers have attempted to lobby their bosses to change their stands on gay issues — gay activists are doing something they believe will hurt the party they love to hate — and so help the real object of their efforts, electing more Democrats.

They’re not concerned so much about helping gays as they are about securing political power for the Left. How ironic that they want to help the Democrats rise to power this fall by doing something, which they believe, will hurt individual gay men and women.

Some on the left will stop at nothing to promote their political interests.

But, their tactics, which will likely backfire, show how incredibly narrow-minded they are and show as well the assumptions they make about social conservatives. To be sure, many social conservatives have some pretty backward and inaccurate ideas about gay people. But, I highly doubt that all but a handful will abandon the GOP because some top Republicans have gay staffers. They will support candidates based on their stands on issues of concern to them. And social conservatives have more concerns than blocking legislation beneficial to gays.

Given how long left-wing organizations have had access to this information about Ex-Rep. Foley’s indiscretions, it’s clear they timed the release of it to maximize political damage to the GOP. Why else would they wait until the last day Congress was in session, barely five weeks before the mid-terms?

For the left today, it’s all politics. And they’ll do anything to get power — even if it means compromising the lives of individual members of an supposedly “protected” class. Two years ago, John Kerry’s only interest in Mary Cheney was how he could use her to hurt his political adversaries. Today, it’s gay activists themselves who show little concern for the lives of gay individuals.

Are we ever to find a gay leader bold enough to challenge both the anti-gay policies of social conservatives and the indifference of Democrats and many gay leftists to individual gay conservatives?

Share

53 Comments

  1. The left seems to think that the right is so bigoted and homophobic that if they reveal that there are actual ‘somdomites and homerseskhals’ in the Republican party, that the conservative base will eagerly hand the Congress over to the party of the ACLU, abortion-on-demand, and kindergarten sex-ed.

    To the gay left, there is no issue other than the gay agenda. Because they see the religious right as their hated enemy, the gay left projects their obsession with the gay agenda onto them, and assumes it is their enemy’s only issue as well. Not so.

    The Republicans may well, and deservedly, lose Congress in this election cycle, but it won’t be just about Mark Foley. The conservative base is also unhappy about the failure to control spending, enact earmark reform, and secure the border. If they do lose, they can take as their silver lining the fact that the Democrats will be focused entirely on a futile effort at impeachment, which will not go over well with the mainstream. And when they aren’t trying to impeach the president, they’ll be pushing tax increases, surrender in Iraq, and a Terrorist-Bill-of-Rights. Not exactly a popular agenda with the American mainstream.

    Comment by Nobody — October 6, 2006 @ 7:33 pm - October 6, 2006

  2. “Given how long left-wing organizations have had access to this information about Ex-Rep. Foley’s indiscretions, it’s clear they timed the release of it to maximize political damage to the GOP. Why else would they wait until the last day Congress was in session, barely five weeks before the mid-terms?”

    Given how long Republicans in the House have had access to this information about Ex-Rep. Foley’s ‘indiscretions,’ it’s clear they timed the release of it (read: never) to minimize political damage to the GOP. Why else would they have never acted on it, whether it was five weeks before the 2006 mid-terms or five years before the 2006 mid-terms?

    “Are we ever to find a gay leader bold enough to challenge both the anti-gay policies of social conservatives and the indifference of Democrats and many gay leftists to individual gay conservatives?”

    Are we ever to find a gay conservative bold enough to challenge both the anti-gay policies of social conservatives and the indifference of Republicans and many gay right-wingers or so called Patriots to ALL gay people?

    (This is all too easy.)

    Comment by jimmy — October 6, 2006 @ 7:38 pm - October 6, 2006

  3. Ah, but you see, Jimmy, they did act on what they had, which were the emails.

    The instant messages were in Democrats’ hands, not Republicans.

    What you’re basically saying is that the Republicans should have automatically assumed Foley was a pedophile because they allegedly knew he was gay.

    Are we ever to find a gay conservative bold enough to challenge both the anti-gay policies of social conservatives and the indifference of Republicans and many gay right-wingers or so called Patriots to ALL gay people?

    The problem is, jimmy, that “gay people” like yourself have a constantly shifting definition of “antigay” — which, in a nutshell, is based on political affiliation, not actions.

    It simply is impossible to condemn antigay activities on the part of Republicans when you and yours call the identical ones of Democrats “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” and pump them tens of millions of dollars in endorsements and support.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 6, 2006 @ 7:49 pm - October 6, 2006

  4. The extreme right does not control the Republican party, and I think those who know what’s at stake in this election will turn out and vote republican.

    This whole Foley debacle has gotten Republicans off message – we need to get back on it. The left wants to disable the President we elected – they will cut off funding for the war and do away with all the programs that have worked to stop the terrorists before they can attack us.

    When it comes to the list – I think you will find a groundswell movement forming against it, and many people who will stand with you. As one blogger posted, “we are all gay.” These narrow-minded fascist thugs must be stopped before they destroy more peoples’ lives.

    Ed Shrock was my representative. I am furious at what was done to him and his family. I do not know if those tapes were real or not – I don’t care. Ed Schrock did a good job, he should still be in Washington.

    Oh, I’m not gay.

    Comment by Linda — October 6, 2006 @ 9:23 pm - October 6, 2006

  5. [Comment deleted.  This commenter has been repeatedly banned under a variety of names.  His IP address remains the same.]

    Comment by Anonymous — October 6, 2006 @ 10:27 pm - October 6, 2006

  6. -But, their tactics, which will likely backfire, show how incredibly narrow-minded they are and show as well the assumptions they make about social conservatives. To be sure, many social conservatives have some pretty backward and inaccurate ideas about gay people. But, I highly doubt that all but a handful will abandon the GOP because some top Republicans have gay staffers. They will support candidates based on their stands on issues of concern to them. And social conservatives have more concerns than blocking legislation beneficial to gays.-

    Social conservatives like Tony Perkins and Bay Buchanan were the first to go to the media and try to make this about gays. Blocking legislation beneficial to gays is probaly the #1 reason for groups like Focus on the Family and Family Research Council.

    What this scandal will do is just make sure that more gays on Capitol Hill are closeted, and more gays who are in positions of power will be forced out.

    If the Republicans were not beholden to these organizations, than nothing Democrats could do could affect them. My guess is that social conservative organizations already knew who most of the gay staffers were. They just didn’t have the momentum to get them out. Now, thanks to Mark Foley, they do.

    Comment by Carl — October 6, 2006 @ 11:38 pm - October 6, 2006

  7. Linda, it is people like you who will be the salvation of this country. God bless you and yours.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — October 6, 2006 @ 11:40 pm - October 6, 2006

  8. Any leader who would unite both liberal and conservative gays has a very daunting task.

    First, that leader would have to teach gay liberals that being gay and conservative isn’t necessarily an oxymoron. Difficult? Yes. Impossible? Absolutely not.

    The other task is reconciling the GOP with the LGBT community. The LGBT liberal response to things like the 2004 election is the result of harsh, prejudiced words and a very concerted effort to exploit prejudice against LGBT persons for political gain. And true to the nature of politics, many people jumped in on that one…including Democrats scared of losing their positions.

    Whether closeted and gay or straight and indifferent, it’s amazing what politicians regardless of political affiliation will do for power and a paycheck.

    Comment by James — October 7, 2006 @ 12:04 am - October 7, 2006

  9. -The LGBT liberal response to things like the 2004 election is the result of harsh, prejudiced words and a very concerted effort to exploit prejudice against LGBT persons for political gain.-

    That’s the problem, because some gay conservatives believe that Republicans are never to blame for homophobia, that it’s always the fault of gays, that if gays acted the right way, said the right things, knew their place, then they would be fine. It’s the flip side of those on the gay left who think gays are victims and can do nothing wrong.

    Comment by Carl — October 7, 2006 @ 12:15 am - October 7, 2006

  10. Dear Jewish Naz– er, “Gay Patriot,”

    Fuck you.

    Very truly yours…

    Comment by dave — October 7, 2006 @ 12:18 am - October 7, 2006

  11. How do you get “never” Carl?

    As far as I can tell the usual opinion typed out around here is not that Republicans are never homophobic but that in general terms they aren’t any worse than Democrats if judged by their actions.

    And then, of course, are enlightened comments from people like dave.

    Comment by Synova — October 7, 2006 @ 1:16 am - October 7, 2006

  12. Outing Ed Schrock was completely legitimate because, as a veteran himself, he advocated that gays could not serve in the military.

    Now, I might be going out on a limb here, but just as a rule of thumb, when a politician advocates for something, but then does the opposite himself, that should be brought to the attention of the voters. Such was the case with Ed Schrock.

    Evidently, Rep. Schrock believed gays shouldn’t serve in the military, unless they were named Ed Schrock.

    That’s relevant.

    Comment by Chase — October 7, 2006 @ 1:33 am - October 7, 2006

  13. #5
    Interesting questions. What about suppoorters of lord BJ? What does that say about them?
    are you furious about what HE did to his family? Are you furious that he lied to get elected? Are you furious that he pretended to be something he isn’t just to induce you to vote for him?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 7, 2006 @ 1:35 am - October 7, 2006

  14. I’m sure those organizations knew who those gay staff members were…. Who is sending them this stuff? It would be nice to know which gay leftists are doing this?

    At the same time these organizations (FRC, Focus, etc.) don’t give a damn whether gop people on capitol are gay or not – but they don’t want GOP gays out. A good illustration of this was the leviticus crowd groups going after Paul Koering in Minnesota – the reason they went after him is he was out – and they didn’t want an out gay republican. The good news, is despite all their efforts, he still won.

    They are losing ground in the GOP, have no ground in the democrats… And are becoming a marginal force.

    Comment by Eva Young — October 7, 2006 @ 2:10 am - October 7, 2006

  15. Are you in favor of military service, Chase?

    Comment by Frank IBC — October 7, 2006 @ 2:16 am - October 7, 2006

  16. #3. LOL!!! That’s all I can do with that one.

    Comment by jimmy — October 7, 2006 @ 2:45 am - October 7, 2006

  17. -As far as I can tell the usual opinion typed out around here is not that Republicans are never homophobic but that in general terms they aren’t any worse than Democrats if judged by their actions. –

    I wasn’t necessarily talking about here, but I have seen, more than once, anti-gay legislation, anti-gay rhetoric, etc. justified by pointing out some bad thing a homosexual did, or by decrying (fill in the blank gay organization), or saying that some homosexuals are promiscuous, anti-family, etc. so therefore it’s understandable why people hate us and work against us. The problem with this argument is there are “bad” people in any group of people, regardless of race or sexual orientation. Yet gays are all supposed to be on perfect behavior at all times or we deserve everything we get.

    -A good illustration of this was the leviticus crowd groups going after Paul Koering in Minnesota – the reason they went after him is he was out – and they didn’t want an out gay republican.-

    I thought the reasons had more to do with not wanting Democrats to win that district (isn’t Koering like the first Republican to hold that district in 30+ years?). With Bachmann and Pawlenty still getting so much attention in the MNGOP I have my doubts about that state’s party changing. I hope I’m wrong.

    Anyway, the Foley story is losing interest in the media. People will move on. I’m more worried about what will be going on behind the scenes, what kind of a culture of fear and retribution will be set up for gay Republicans in DC. I think some elements in the GOP have just been looking for an excuse to purge even more gays from the party, and this is the excuse.

    Comment by Carl — October 7, 2006 @ 4:01 am - October 7, 2006

  18. I think some elements in the GOP have just been looking for an excuse to purge even more gays from the party, and this is the excuse.

    Although…
    correct me if I’m wrong, that guy that works for Santorum was out or came out and nobody cared. Wasn’t that a discussion here a few months back?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 7, 2006 @ 5:05 am - October 7, 2006

  19. Yes, he was revealed as gay last year, and Santorum said he knew and didn’t have a problem with the man being gay. As long as the aides stay loyal to the party and to the person they’re working for, and they don’t get into scandals, then I think some Republicans in Congress are willing to work with them. I’ve criticized Santorum but I do think he has principles. Unfortunately now after all this with Foley I think the “family” groups are going to fight hard to get Republicans in Congress to force out gay staffers, to make sure they don’t hire any more openly gay staffers, and it will probably work.

    Comment by Carl — October 7, 2006 @ 9:29 am - October 7, 2006

  20. I doubt that any major religious right organizations are stupid enough to publish the list because they would be opening themselves to all sorts of potential legal liability, including libel if anyone on that list is not homosexual, or possibly invasion of privacy against those who are. If someone accuses a gay staffer as being involved in some kind of conspiracy to permit Foley to pester pages, then that too may be libellous or slanderous. And, as I recall, DC still has a criminal libel statute on the books, although it is almost never used. At most, these groups will assert the existence of a gay conspiracy or a GOP “homintern” without naming names, putting pressure on Congressmen that way. It may very well be, however, that a rag-tag gay or religious right activist might be stupid enough to publish this information.

    The interesting question is whether individual Congressmen will fire gay staffers on their own initiative solely as a consequence of the Foley scandal. That is indeed possible, though I suspect that it is probably unlikely that most Republican congressmen would do that. A few might. Another interesting question is whether the religious right activists will extract an agreement from the House Republican leadership to pursue extremely punitive anti-gay federal legislation in return for votes in a tight race. I doubt that, because even if that occured, such legislation still would not pass the House if Republicans who are not beholden to the evangelical vote balked, and would almost certainly die in the Senate, in any event.

    Comment by Patrick Rothwell — October 7, 2006 @ 9:51 am - October 7, 2006

  21. Patrick, you bring up some very serious points. I do worry about what kind of anti-gay extremes these groups may try to push the GOP towards over the next few years. If Democrats take Congress, then that will just give the GOP even more of an idea of pushing this type of legislation. I think it would backfire, but I’m not sure they would agree with me.

    Comment by Carl — October 7, 2006 @ 12:02 pm - October 7, 2006

  22. I think that you guys are using your own preconceptions as a guide for what you believe may happen. The chances of either party getting behind gay marriage is none to zip. Beyond that truth, I really do think that “extremely punitive anti-gay federal legislation” is something that springs from your own prejudices, particularly about “family groups”. Or are you equating anti-gay marriage to “extremely punitive?” What, seriously, do you think these people want to do to you?

    For the most part they’d like gay people not to be gay, which has to bite, and think that gay people have the option of not being gay, and Lord knows I’ve sat through a sermon about homosexual debatchery ( and would it help to know that the *extremely* conservative fundy congregation made a formal complaint about that guest preacher?) and they see marriage as under attack… which it is, but very very few people want gay people to lose their jobs or think that anything *punative* should be involved.

    I know that it doesn’t feel the least bit loving to have people want to *cure* you, but that feeling doesn’t mean they hate your or want to hurt you either.

    Comment by Synova — October 7, 2006 @ 12:53 pm - October 7, 2006

  23. Synova,

    I’m not talking about anti gay marriage laws as an example of an extremely punitive statute – though they could be depending on how they are drafted. I have other ideas that would certainly pass constitutional muster, but I’m not sharing them here so as to give anyone some funny ideas. Suffice to say, if the Federal and/or state governments were inclined to crush the gay (or MSM?) subculture, there are more effective (and indisputably constitutional) ways to do so other than by means of criminal laws against sodomy as such.

    As to the “harm” that pro-family groups want to cause gays, it is of course somewhat dangerous to make sweeping generalizations. But having heard and engaged in private conversations with both religious right and gay activist figures over the years, a zero-sum game mentality prevails in both groups. In other words, there is a strong tendency in both groups to believe that the “enemy” must be destroyed, before the enemy destroys “us.” That makes it very difficult for reasonable people to create a political and cultural modus vivendi. To put it in ante-bellum terms, the culture wars are dominated by latter-day Edmund Ruffins and John Calhouns on the one side and the Charles Sumners and John Browns on the others side. We need desperately some Henry Clays and Daniel Websters in the political process. Frankly, I do not see any on the horizon for the foreseeable future.

    Comment by Patrick Rothwell — October 7, 2006 @ 1:50 pm - October 7, 2006

  24. #22: “I know that it doesn’t feel the least bit loving to have people want to *cure* you, but that feeling doesn’t mean they hate your or want to hurt you either.”

    Fine then what’s this from NARTH “scientist” Joseph Berger http://tinyurl.com/eupvr :

    “…I suggest, indeed, letting children who wish go to school in clothes of the opposite sex — but not counseling other children to not tease them or hurt their feelings.

    On the contrary, don’t interfere, and let the other children ridicule the child who has lost that clear boundary between play-acting at home and the reality needs of the outside world. Maybe, in this way, the child will re-establish that necessary boundary.”

    Comment by Ian — October 7, 2006 @ 3:09 pm - October 7, 2006

  25. It’s pretty funny as I’ve read this site in the past week. You (and the supporters of this site) have twisted every piece of info on the Foley case to make it appear that all this is the fault of the Democrats. This case involves a closted conservative Republican who, sadly, also happens to enjoy sexual interest underage guys. Would this post have appeared on your site if it had not been for Foley? I think not.

    Ultimately, I respect an individual’s right to maintain their privacy as they wish, because able to live your life as you want is something that should be everyone’s right in this country. We should remember that being closeted can be the by-product of fear, prejudice, self-hatred, societal pressure, etc. It’s too bad that progress in this area of human rights has become so stalled. On the political scene, this has been perpetrated overwhelmingly by the growing, so-called religious arm of the of Republican party and not by Democrats as you like to contend here.

    Last week I watched a documentary on Barry Goldwater. Although my political beliefs were not in line with his, it’s clear that he was a true, thoughtful person who could back up most of his personal and political beliefs with clear, concise reasoning (although his biggest failing was probably his stance on the 1964 civil rights act). It seems he was one of the few people to stand up and say that having a political party align itself so closely to religious groups was a dangerous move and now we’re seeing what this alliance has wrought. Better get yoru act together and stop depending on religous zealots to ganer more and more control of a democratic government.

    Comment by Kevin — October 7, 2006 @ 3:09 pm - October 7, 2006

  26. I am not overly convinced any of the “family values” type groups are going to do much with the list-or at least not publically.

    As for gay marriage, I don’t see either party at the national level getting behind it, I really think this is something that has to be advocated and changed at the state level, and I suspect once enough states are brought on board with at least some type of civil union type deal, that the federal government will follow. I think the area of taxes is probably the major one with concern for gay couples at the Federal level.

    Comment by just me — October 7, 2006 @ 4:14 pm - October 7, 2006

  27. Kevin in #25, if you think we “have twisted every piece of info on the Foley case to make it appear that all this is the fault of the Democrats,” you obviously have not read our coverage of the Foley kerfuffle.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — October 7, 2006 @ 4:37 pm - October 7, 2006

  28. As for gay marriage … I really think this is something that has to be advocated and changed at the state level

    IMHO, it’s very arrogant to assume that people who oppose gay marriage are “uneducated.” As if it’s impossible for an intelligent, well-educated person to oppose gay marriage.

    Comment by Nobody — October 7, 2006 @ 4:42 pm - October 7, 2006

  29. Never mind, I misread ‘advocated’ as ‘educated.’ Please disregard.

    Comment by Nobody — October 7, 2006 @ 4:43 pm - October 7, 2006

  30. Am I in favor of military service, Frank?

    I’m not sure what that question is specifically asking, but I do believe military service is an honorable pursuit and anyone who wishes to do so should be able to.

    A soldier’s sexuality is not relevant to his/her abilities.

    Comment by Chase — October 7, 2006 @ 7:12 pm - October 7, 2006

  31. According to Tony Perkins’ 10/3 “Hardball” interview, it sounds like he knew about Foley for some time:

    “MATTHEWS: Do you think the leadership of the House should have acted when they saw that Mark Foley was spending an inordinate amount of time hanging around pages, just seemingly too interested in them? Is that enough for action?

    PERKINS: Yes, I think there is, because in talking to some pages, you know–I`ve had people now on staff that used to be pages, and it was widely known to watch out for him, that he liked boys. And the question–and this question I asked …”

    So FRC turned a blind eye to this issue, then acted outraged when Foley was finally caught? Typical hypocrites.

    Comment by Carl — October 7, 2006 @ 11:12 pm - October 7, 2006

  32. It is truly ironic to now see the Democratic left all of a sudden become the party of morals and ethics. How soon do they forget the Red Chinese/DNC/Teamsters fundraising scandal and the sexual escapades of Bill Clinton and that liberal pedophile Mel Reynolds. I also agree that Ed Schrock shouldn’t have resigned. He did absolutelly nothing wrong.

    Comment by RobRob61 — October 8, 2006 @ 2:46 am - October 8, 2006

  33. Interesting question, Carl. But, the way I read Perkins is that he may not have even bothered to ask his former pages about Foley until the scandal broke. Now, if the FRC were to ask their pages for “dirt” about who in Congress might be homosexual, and then collects these rumors for later use, a la Mike Rogers, then that is outrageous and contrary to their professed standards of Christian morality. But that is to read too much into that particular colloquy.

    Comment by Patrick Rothwell — October 8, 2006 @ 10:22 am - October 8, 2006

  34. #32: “Ed Schrock shouldn’t have resigned. He did absolutelly nothing wrong.”

    A married man with kids advertising for gay tricks – and apparently getting a few – “did absolutely nothing wrong.” Let me guess, with morals like that, you just have to be a Republican.

    Comment by Ian — October 8, 2006 @ 10:49 am - October 8, 2006

  35. [Comment deleted.  This commenter has been repeatedly banned under a variety of names.  His IP address remains the same.]

    Comment by Anonymous — October 8, 2006 @ 3:14 pm - October 8, 2006

  36. 27: Why do you call someone who is engaged in illegal activity with a minor a kerfuffle? I think that’s your attempt to try and sweep this under the carpet. You gay republicans are getting spanked for all you high morality over this whole thing and you just can’t stand it.

    Comment by Kevin — October 8, 2006 @ 8:08 pm - October 8, 2006

  37. [Comment deleted.  This commenter has been repeatedly banned under a variety of names.  His IP address remains the same.]

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

  38. Oh-oh, Jim Kolbe knew of Foley’s sex emails to pages way back in 2000 http://tinyurl.com/qzx2h and it sounds like they were sexually explicit ones. So, Republican House members have known for at least six years about Foley’s penchant for teen male pages. I don’t want to hear any more ignorant blather about when Dems knew, I want an abject apology. Republican in the House have allowed this creep free reign for at least six years. If they had any integrity, they’d be resigning en masse.

    Comment by Ian — October 8, 2006 @ 11:13 pm - October 8, 2006

  39. I am amazed. There was no proof that Ed Schrock’s voice was the voice on that tape. There is also no proof that the IM’s attributed to Foley were actually written by Foley – even if they had been, no one said “stop” – did they?? Or tell their parents?? File complaints with the ISP even?? No? I would say they were consenting.

    A 38 year old man seduced my 17 year old niece, she got pregnant. Do you know what the district attorney said??? “She’s past the age of consent, it’s her business.”

    Now, you may accept the appearance of “guilty behavior” as proof – it would be considered evidence, but not proof. I’m not willing to make that leap in logic.

    It’s like the Salem witch trials – out them and see if they resign – if they do they were gay, if they fight back, well, then maybe you were wrong. Nice.

    What about Mary Cheney?? Were they outing her?? Oh, no, wait, she was already out. What then??

    Re Foley: Anyone familiar with email and IM’s knows that the only way to know if an IM or email is authentic is to look at it while it is either in the “in box” in it’s original form, or to see it archived on the server – or to stand and look over the author’s shoulder while he IM’s. Past that point, they can be altered. Just take one of them, in any email program, and click on “forward.” Even expanded headers can be altered. No one has offered any evidence that the IM’s are actually from Foley. The alleged “witnesses” are anonymous. sorry Charlie, I’ve had it with anonymous sources and fake but accurate.

    Ed Schrock is from another generation. So, assume for the sake of argument that his is the voice on that tape – anyone in his generation might react that way. No, I would not hold it against him unless he didn’t do his job. Then he would be voted out – we do not need Rogers and his crew deciding who we should or should not have representing us.

    It’s my understanding that a representative represents. That means we tell Ed Shcrock what we want, and he votes that way. It does not mean that he votes the way he thinks. I know I meail Thelma Drake about once a week to tell her what I want.

    Finally, I find the stance of the left on these issues the height of hypocracy. Straight men flirt with 17 year old girls all the time. I’m sure straigh congressmen flirt with 17 year old girls – probably 17 year old female pages, too. What made this such a headline??? Foley is gay.

    All this is from the people who support teenage girls getting abortions without their parents’ consent. Really, now. Please. Who is the hypocrite?

    As usual, the left has miscalculated – they have no clue about conservatives, so they think they threw out some red meat, and the religious right will abandon the republican ship and vote democratic. What a joke. It is not going to happen.

    The list strategy is probably already backfiring – I see Rogers is deleting posts from his blog. Did he maybe get a subpoena? Or maybe the DNCC said “delete that, and get lost.”

    Like I said, there is a growing backlash to the “outing” business, within the Republican party. Just watch. It is not going to go the way liberals think, and conservative gays who are comfortable with themselves should stand, they will not be alone. They will probably be joined by some liberal gays, hahaha. We republicans do argue among ourselves – we actually have differing views about a lot of things. It’s not a weakness, it’s a strength.

    Comment by Linda — October 9, 2006 @ 12:38 am - October 9, 2006

  40. #39: Girl, you are truly “da Queen of da Nile.” But thanks for giving us all insight into how the Republican mind “works.”

    Comment by Ian — October 9, 2006 @ 12:55 am - October 9, 2006

  41. We hear the terror in your voice, IanRaj — and, true to form, you respond by insulting a voter who doesn’t buy your theory.

    Linda, thank you. Now, remember to point out how IanRaj treated you to everyone you know and make it clear to them……the Dems are all like him, people who insult your beliefs, your faith, and your rights when you don’t do exactly as they tell you to do.

    If they stay home, or if they vote Democrat, they are putting in power people like IanRaj — people who call them stupid.

    Thanks again, IanRaj; you and your mouth are the best arguments for Republicans that I’ve ever seen.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 9, 2006 @ 1:54 am - October 9, 2006

  42. Why do you call someone who is engaged in illegal activity with a minor a kerfuffle?

    When Gerry Studds and Mel Reynolds did it, it was no big deal because they were Democrats. As far as we know, the worst of Foley’s offenses fall under the heading, “creepy but (unfortunately) not illegal.” And, unlike Democrats Studds and Reynolds, Foley was driven from office by his party. The Democrat Party rallies around its predators.

    Comment by Nobody — October 9, 2006 @ 8:16 am - October 9, 2006

  43. #41: Nice to have you on record supporting adultery. Did James Dobson tell you it was OK as long as the adulterer was a Republican?

    Comment by Ian — October 9, 2006 @ 10:16 am - October 9, 2006

  44. Now, remember to point out how IanRaj treated you to everyone you know and make it clear to them……the Dems are all like him, people who insult your beliefs, your faith, and your rights when you don’t do exactly as they tell you to do.

    Yes, you are so right. Have an Oreo? 😉

    IMO it will get worse before it gets better, as the left grows more desperate.

    How about the latest “bombshell” ?? 21 year old former page comes forward, and confesses to having sex with Foley. So, now perhaps everyone who has had sex with Foley should come forward? Or, as one blogger said, how about a 21 year old former first grader? That should bust in on the news cycle in a big way.

    Or I can point out that now every gay man in government who has a relationship with a younger man has a target on his back. Way to go!

    Re the question about legal and illegal WRT Foley’s actions – you are conflating issues that are unrelated. The emails, undeniably sent by Foley, were friendly emails to teenagers he mentored in congress.

    The IM’s which may or may not have been Foley’s, so far, are all to individuals over the age of consent. ABC’s presentation has been deliberately imsleading IMO, in order to generate headlines and probably to influence an election.

    The sex, so far, has been with adult men of legal age.

    Where is the crime??

    Foley’s “crime” was bad judgment, probably due to his drinking problem. Agreed, he should not be in congress with the problems he has, but the same can be said of many many people in congress, a large percentage of them democrats.

    Foley was targeted by Rogers, and was outed a long time ago; when it did not have the desired effect (ending his career), they went after him another way – his liking for young men, and his lack of judgment, which made him vulnerable.

    Dems have sold their souls. With Clinton, they betrayed the women’s movement, showed it for what it isn’t. Recently, they’ve made frantic efforts to get Blacks back onto the plantation – Michael Steele knows what he’s dealing with, and is not afraid. Now they’ve made gay men in government into targets of unreasonable investigations.

    What will they do if they do not take congress wiht this election?? It could get ugly.

    Comment by Linda — October 9, 2006 @ 11:24 am - October 9, 2006

  45. #41: Nice to have you on record supporting adultery. Did James Dobson tell you it was OK as long as the adulterer was a Republican?

    LOL….and to what are you referring, IanRaj?

    Neither Foley or the pages with which he was speaking were married.

    If you’re referring to Ed Schrock, you still have provided no proof that he ever cheated on his wife, or that the tapes of him allegedly calling a chat line are valid — since Mike Rogers astonishingly refuses to provide his source or the actual, original tapes themselves.

    And as for adultery…….since when have you Clintonites opposed that?

    Linda’s bringing up excellent points, and all you can do is fling insults.

    As I said, IanRaj….keep talking. You and your fellows are the reason that Dem candidates keep getting sunk in elections — people realize to whom they cater.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 9, 2006 @ 12:35 pm - October 9, 2006

  46. #44: “The sex, so far, has been with adult men of legal age.

    Where is the crime??”

    See here: http://tinyurl.com/fqbnk

    But the legality of what Foley did is no longer the point: the authorities will deal with him appropriately. There is no question that whether or not he actually violated the law, he was ABSOLUTELY WRONG to do what he did. So now the issue is what did the Greedy Old Perverts leadership in the House know and when did they know it? Increasingly it looks like they’ve known for at least six years and did nothing about it until it was exposed by ABC News.

    Comment by Ian — October 9, 2006 @ 2:19 pm - October 9, 2006

  47. Increasingly it looks like they’ve known for at least six years and did nothing about it

    Known what?

    This is the conflating… what was sent to existing minor pages was – tada – harmless emails. What would you be saying if anyone had acted on those? Oh never mind, you won’t answer that – you will wait a few days and “conflate” again.

    There were no IM’s until after the pages left the page program and had reached age of consent.

    For a sex scandal, this is seriously missing the sex.

    Comment by Linda — October 9, 2006 @ 5:19 pm - October 9, 2006

  48. There is no question that whether or not he actually violated the law, he was ABSOLUTELY WRONG to do what he did.

    LOL…..sorry, puppet IanRaj, but you are on record saying that rules or laws against sex or sexual innuendo with minors are “imposing religious beliefs”.

    In short, you say it’s wrong to have sex or sexual innuendo with minors, but then argue that it’s not wrong to have sex or sexual innuendo with minors.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 9, 2006 @ 7:21 pm - October 9, 2006

  49. #47: “There were no IM’s until after the pages left the page program and had reached age of consent.”

    From http://tinyurl.com/zn4f3 :

    “— Summer 1997: Tyson Vivyan, now 26, says he started receiving sexually suggestive instant messages from a person he later guessed was Foley. The messages started arriving a few months after he finished his stint as a page that June, according to Vivyan.”

    You can do the math: 26 today means the page was 17 in 1997. More:

    “—2003: Foley, a Florida Republican, reportedly writes sexually explicit instant messages to a male House page.”

    Note that it said simply “page” not “former page.”

    Here’s more http://tinyurl.com/jns9g :

    “”I was seventeen years old and just returned to [my home state] when Foley began to e-mail me, asking if I had ever seen my page roommates naked and how big their penises were,” said the page in the 2002 class.”

    Furthermore, pages were actually being warned about Foley at least as far back as 2001 and perhaps before. Obviously someone knew there was a problem. We also know that Kolbe was concerned enough to confront Foley in 2000. Did Kolbe then just forget about it or did he follow up on it? Plus the leadership and their staff have not inspired confidence with their conflicting and frequently changing stories.

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

  50. #48: “but you are on record saying that rules or laws against sex or sexual innuendo with minors are “imposing religious beliefs”.”

    No, YOU said you wanted a federal law to override the state laws on age of consent and make it 18. I have consistently stated that I believe it’s for the states to set their own ages of consent and for you to push for a Federal law overriding state laws would be imposing your religious dogma on everyone else in the country. Typical for a Dobson acolyte such as yourself.

    Furthermore, you seem to think it’s fine for a Republican Congressman to hit on teenage pages. I DON’T even if the law was not broken. A Congressman is in a position of power over these pages and Foley has abused that position regardless of whether or not he broke the law.

    Comment by Ian — October 9, 2006 @ 9:33 pm - October 9, 2006

  51. And what is the age of consent? Where was the page at the time? – age of consent is a state law. Us a sexually explicit instant message the same as sex? conflating again.

    Why hasn’t Foley been indicted? Charged? The only subpoena’s issued have been by congress – and they are not about Foley, they are about who knew what and when they knew it.

    BTW, do y’all know Trandahl is on the board of HRC?

    Comment by Linda — October 9, 2006 @ 11:45 pm - October 9, 2006

  52. #51: “And what is the age of consent? Where was the page at the time? – age of consent is a state law.”

    There is also a Federal age of consent governing the Internet and it’s 18. But the various authorities will determine if any laws were broken. At this point, I’m more concerned with holding the Greedy Old Perverts leadership accountable for ITS actions or lack thereof. Apparently so are the American people http://tinyurl.com/h2xqz :

    “Seventy-nine percent of those polled — including 61 percent of Republicans — say GOP leaders were more concerned with politics than the well-being of the teenage pages. “

    Comment by Ian — October 10, 2006 @ 12:25 am - October 10, 2006

  53. LOL….again, puppet IanRaj sticks his foot in his mouth:

    I have consistently stated that I believe it’s for the states to set their own ages of consent and for you to push for a Federal law overriding state laws would be imposing your religious dogma on everyone else in the country.

    And yet puppet IanRaj is screaming that sex and sexual messages to people 16 and older — which IS legal in the District of Columbia — is illegal, wrong, and immoral.

    If puppet IanRaj is so concerned about children, one would think that he would demand that the Federal government standardize age-of-consent laws to protect minors. But the simple fact of the matter is that IanRaj doesn’t oppose child sex; that’s why he opposes criminalizing it. He’s simply trying to Republican-bash, blaming Foley for what he applauds in Democrats like Gerry Studds.

    And as for his desperate attempt above…..somehow, the only thing he manages to continue turning up is FORMER pages over the age of consent — and, according to IanRaj, even sex with people under the age of 18 is OK if it’s over the age of consent.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 10, 2006 @ 1:15 am - October 10, 2006

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.