Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Shop AMAZON*
Supposedly Haster knew about these allegations a year ago. If so - that will be the real scandal.
Its one really good day for the Tim Mahoney people.
Foley, folly......BUGGERY !!!I'm the poet around here.Peace, Maxine
Foley's resignation suggests that there's may be more to this story than has come out so far. But none of the behavior described so far seems necessarily inappropriate -- no off-color remarks, no sexual advances, nothing like that at all.I'm curious why the St. Petersburg Times sat on this story for ten months, though.
Revenant,ABC News has copies of IMs from Foley to others highly suggestive ("...do I make you a little bit horny?") of sexual advances, so I think you might be off point on this one.Regardless, I'd be interested in seeing how Foley is worse/better/equal to Gerry Studds of MA from the MSM, but I'm not holding my breath.
Sounds like the Congressman learned his tact and pickup lines from Austin Powers with the "Do I make you horny baby" line. What a damn creep
pedafolia?ABC News link with more details, including this stunner: "One former page tells ABC News that his class was warned about Foley by people involved in the program."OK, so the people running the program knew enough about Foley to warn the pages, and yet no one did anything about it. I hope Foley isn't the only one who goes to jail over this.
"I'm curious why the St. Petersburg Times sat on this story for ten months, though."Me, I'm curious why the Republican House leadership sat on this for that long. Why would they let him be one of the primary sponsors of the "Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006"?
Needless to say Foley is a sick perve. However, now that I see the Democrats and their supporters (Jim C, gj & dtl) are on this story like flies on shit, I will remain skeptical as to how much & when the Republican leadership became aware of this guy's perversion. Keep overplaying your hand libs (or not libs as some of you keep asserting), you still need a dozen House seats to gain a majority.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060929/ap_on_go_co/congressman_e_mailsIn that story you will see that Alexander (the Republican Rep. who sponsored the page) "learned of the e-mail exchanges 10 to 11 months ago, he called the teen's parents. Alexander told the Ruston Daily Leader, 'We also notified the House leadership that there might be a potential problem,' a reference to the House's Republican leaders."Admittedly, I am doing the Dems bidding here but either Alexander is lying about when he knew or who he told otherwise the Republican house leadership knew.
TCD, my comment was about Republicans knowing, it was about the fact that people running the page program apparently knew, because they were warning pages to stay away from Foley. I have no idea whether the page program is run by party people or non-partisan employees. But whoever they are, they should lose their jobs at a minimum. Do you not agree?
"none of the behavior described so far seems necessarily inappropriate"--- revenantHel-lo ???? Are we reading the same online transcripts?He was soliciting a minor, who he knew to be a minor.....all that stuff about "at your age" blah blah blah (I'm riveted to those transcripts)....(never been so titillated in my life).He was engaging in online sex, and specifically knew it was with a minor.Horrible. But, I'm loving every juicy minute.I thrive on this kind of delicious scandal.It's getting dark earlier, I'm not doing any heavy reading......so I need something to chew on.I'm on a rampage! I can't wait to see how much more lurid and tawdry it gets.Bring it!Peace, Maxine
Oh dear Lord, I've not been this worked up since the Vicki Morgan/Alfred Bloomingdale sex tapes!That coy little remark about the Mother and how the mother doesn't know a thing about instant messaging, much less email.Sure she doesn't.I'm beginning to think it's another Michael Jackson kinda deal, whereby the Mother knew about the whole thing but encouraged it because he was a Congressman and the prestige etc...This is gettin' good.Peace, Maxine
"Spanking wood""One-eyed snake""Hand-job"??????I'm learning a whole new vernacular.Learning the lingo.Blushing.Oh my goodness gracious, I feel a Victorian Grandmother.Can't these guys use anatomically correct terms in their online sex talk?Maybe kind of like a sort of, a dry Noel Coward banter....back and forth.It'd sure be a lot easier to decipher.Peace, Maxine
"none of the behavior described so far seems necessarily inappropriate"--- revenantHel-lo ???? Are we reading the same online transcripts?I read the article Ann linked too, which just talks about the email exchanges with the one kid. G-rated stuff. But like I said, Foley's resignation made me suspect there was more to the story, and the IM transcripts have since confirmed it.I'd guess that the House leadership was in the same position -- they reportedly knew about the emails, but there was no evidence of inappropriate behavior until ABC went public and people came forward with the IM transcripts.people running the page program apparently knew, because they were warning pages to stay away from Foley.Doesn't mean they had any evidence he'd done anything. They might have thought he was creepy, they might have suspected but had no proof, they might have been homophobic and *assumed* he was a boy-chaser... there are many possibilities.
Oh my goodness gracious, I feel a Victorian Grandmother.Nah, Victorian porn used a whole different set of slang terms. :)
Can we tar and feather him? Then hang him?The Dems should avoid throwing stones. Glass houses. Gerry Studds Barney Frank. At least our perves are forced to resign. But he really should be hung.
Foley is a closet homosexual and was soliciting 16 year old boys. What are people shocked by... are they shocked by Foley's revealed homosexuality.... or by his fantasy of having gay sex and attempted solicitation of a 16 year old? It reminds me of the monica affair (except she was a 20 year old woman rather than a 16 year old male).
Yes, Studds was busted for having sex with a 17 year old page. Somehow thought he managed to stay in Congress for another 23 years. Barney Frank was paying Steve Gobie for Gay sex, and then discovered that Gobie had a side prostitution business being run out of his apartment. Somehow Barney Frank is still in Congress 16 years later.Frank should resign along with Foley.
But he really should be hung.Isn't sixteen the age of consent in Washington DC and Florida?What Foley did was definitely creepy and inappropriate, but calling it perverted or deserving of severe punishment is a bit much. Attraction to 16-year-olds is sexually normal -- that's what puts the "bait" in "jailbait". :)
"I read the article Ann linked too,"---revenantYou mean Ann didn't link to the good stuff ??That Ann---always leaving out the juicy parts, so as not to offend our delicate sensabilities, I spose. You've gotta read the actual (tawdry) text messages.But get out the smelling salts....Peace, Maxine
Jim C, Read the story and nice that you seem to miss this quote from Alexander: "My concern then was the young man's interests and the parents' interests, Alexander said Friday. "We weren't trying to protect anybody except the parents. ... They told me they were comfortable with it and didn't want to pursue anything, didn't want to talk about it anymore." I knew Democrats like you would rush to smear all House Republicans for the foolish and sick acts of an individual pervert. Bet you're ready to string Hastert up in that tree with Foley.gj, Thanks for the clarification and you are right that the pages should be protected from Congressional predators.
And....I've heard that Boehner was the one told of the boner(s).
Ok, I'll go where Ann fears to tread........strictly for educational purposes, of course---Go here for the dirty parts:http://abcnews.go.com/images/WNT/02-02-03b.pdfPeace, and a cold shower!Maxine
I would never have voted for Gerry Studds. His judgment was horrendous. No different than Foley.But I'm sorry - the judgment of Hastert, who apparently knew about this 10 months ago, is 100 times worse.
Well, Rep. Rodney Alexander, the La., the congressman for whom the young page worked, must be feeling like he can't win for losing.A couple of months ago, Alexander had to fire a staffer after discovering she'd been writing love letters, at work, to Scott Peterson. Obviously, bore no blame for her strange obsession, and took the right course upon discovering it. But I have to wonder what effect this pileup of unseemly stories is going to have here in Louisiana.
Aha! Now we know: Revenant is John Derbyshire.
Maf54: You in your boxers, too?Teen: Nope, just got home. I had a college interview that went late.Maf54: Well, strip down and get relaxed.Peace, Maxine
Maf54: What ya wearing?Teen: tshirt and shortsMaf54: Love to slip them off of you.
The rediculous thing is that we are talking about cyber-sex here.Foley could have gone onto hundreds of different internet chat rooms to have cyber-sex.Instead - he chooses to have cybersex with an underage page he knows.What a dumbass.
Revenant said..."Attraction to 16-year-olds is sexually normal -- that's what puts the bait in jailbait."It's really not normal when you're 52, and still less if the 16 year old is male! It is, at the very least, messed up, and it is absolutely grounds for resignation if not prosecution. I agree with Sloanasaurus, and I tend to agree with Downtownlad that - if the leadership knew about this a year ago - they should have acted. It's one thing for Democrats to do this kind of thing - it will come as no surprise that they seek to corrupt the nation's youth - but it's quite another for the so-called family values party to do so. I remain bemused that a party with so many divorcees and serial philanderers can still claim the mantle of the sanctity of marriage (just as Gingrich's affairs were more reprehensible than Clinton's by virtue of his being a Republican, so in this case.)
Tim - Regardless, I'd be interested in seeing how Foley is worse/better/equal to Gerry Studds of MA from the MSM, but I'm not holding my breath.Different standard. Reading back on that, I am struck by the arrogance of Studds turning his back on the House has the note of censure was read out over his "gay molestation" - confident that a gay friendly media and constituency would not turn on him. (They didn't).Hastert is a waste of ample flesh as Speaker. He ignores this for about a year rather than forcing Foley out and getting a clean candidate to run? Perhaps he was too busy feeding at the K-Street feeding trough that his buds like Tausin and Abramoff set up for his tastes in pork...The Republicans would do well to get rid of this Midwest bumpkin and get Dryer or Boehner in place. Both warned after Abramoff and "Duke" Cunningham that the Party needed a real housecleaning from other scandals brewing in Republican ranks.Oh, and perhaps it is a good time to bring up the "impermissable under PC" fact....that gay men are far more likely to seek underage sex than straight men. It is inherent in the gay culture throughout history...the smooth young boy as sex object. NAMBLA is just a manifestation of that deep-rooted prediliction. (please, no filthy double entendre responses - that I instantly knew it was bad enough)Which is why private organizations are justly wary about having gay men and boys in close proximity. It cost the Catholic Church much of their reputation and hundreds of millions in lawsuits for being where the gay agenda would put other organizations...Bent over, pants dropped, waiting for the trial lawyers to ream them good...
tcd: I never mentioned Hastert, did I? From what I know about Hastert, I can't see him personally (or politically) tolerating such crap. I don't know who knew, but I suspect someone dropped the ball.I didn't miss the quote you provided. I didn't include it here because you had said: "I will remain skeptical as to how much & when the Republican leadership became aware of this guy's perversion." I provided a link and a quote to address your skepticism. You could choose to believe the sotry or not.With regard to how Alexander and the Page's parents handled the situation, I can't fault either of them for how they handled it nor how they wanted it to be handled. That said, if a teacher at my kids' school does something inappropriate with another child and the principal finds out about it, the principal damn well better do something about it whether or not the kid's parents want to pursue charges etc.
Simon, why do you hate America so much?
Oh, and perhaps it is a good time to bring up the "impermissable under PC" fact....that gay men are far more likely to seek underage sex than straight men. It is inherent in the gay culture throughout history...the smooth young boy as sex object. NAMBLA is just a manifestation of that deep-rooted prediliction. (please, no filthy double entendre responses - that I instantly knew it was bad enough)Ann - Apologies in advance for this. Cedarford - You are bigot of the worst kind. Spreading the worst lies about an oppressed minority, with the goal of drumming up violence against them. So full of hate. And so sad.I will say no more - nor will I acknowlege you. But you're talking out of your ass.
now we have a sex scandal. and republicans' sweaty palms are all over it. but it's not any old sex scandal. no sirry. hmosexuality. pedophilia. cover up. involving a congressman who was involved in passing legislations to protect children. hasta la vista republicans. i just don't think this is going to go over well with the soccer moms. or anybody for that matter.
I love it when lefties get a chance to be all moralistic!I agree with downtownlad, this guy was just stupid for doing this with pages that he worked with.I'm also curious why 16 is now considered pedophilia? Honestly, is it now a hanging offense to have cybersex with someone who is of the age of consent (it's apparently 16 in Washington DC). Oh, it's because he's gay. I forgot. That makes him a pervert, unlike the guy leering at the high school cheerleading squad.The hypocrisy on all sides of this is nauseating.Cedarford, piss off.
Oh, and perhaps it is a good time to bring up the "impermissable under PC" fact....that gay men are far more likely to seek underage sex than straight men. It is inherent in the gay culture throughout history...the smooth young boy as sex object. NAMBLA is just a manifestation of that deep-rooted prediliction. (please, no filthy double entendre responses - that I instantly knew it was bad enough)Bull.An attraction to youth is basic to all human sexuality. "The straight culture" is if anything more obsessed with it-- ever seen all those ads for "Girls Gone Wild" on late night TV, or driven past a Catholic school with a straight ? In my experience, "the gay culture" tends to sexualize age a lot more than "the straight culture"-- the 'bear' thing predates 'MILF's by a generation or more.
Jim C, You didn't mention Hastert by name but you did mention "Republican House leadership". Hastert is the Speaker of the House and a Republican, therefore making him a Republican House leader. The truth is I'm glad that Foley resigned and hope that he will be prosecuted if such action is warranted. What I am not looking forward to is the Democrats blowing this issue way out of proportion and with the help of the MSM, use it to smear other House Republicans unjustly. I am awaiting Nancy Pelosi to call for a House review committee to investigate this "troubling" pedophilic predilection of Republican House members. Cry wolf enough times, people stop taking you seriously.
Maf54 (7:48:00 PM): did you spank it this weekend yourselfXxxxxxxxx (7:48:04 PM): noXxxxxxxxx (7:48:16 PM):been too tired and too busyMaf54 (7:48:33 PM): wow...Maf54 (7:48:34 PM): i am never to busy hahaMan oh man is that the kind of thing that you want to hear from your hard-working congresscritter.
And there goes brando. So predictable.
Wow, so the bunch of tongue-wagging scolds still pissed off because Clinton had consensual sex with a woman over 21, the moralistic cheeseheads who just had their panties in a week-long twist because a grown woman got her picture taken not wearing a potato sack - this group is now DEFENDING a pedophile caught, literally, with his pants down?Too, too rich...
This is going to be huge. Hastert may be done. I'm really broken up over here. To see a Republican incumbent's career explode so spectacularly, and then learn that other Republicans in the House knew he had a thing for the page almost a year ago... It's just frightful business!
Palladian, Got your boxers on too?Well, strip down and get relaxed.
Foley FollyFunny, lol.
Yes, keep it up dave! It makes me so hot when angry liberals make moralistic pronouncements!
other Republicans in the House knew he had a thing for the page almost a year ago...The link you provided says nothing about anyone, Republican or otherwise, knowing Foley "had a thing for the page". It says that allegations surfaced a year ago and were investigated. There's no indication that evidence of guilt was found at that time -- and the fact that the parents appear to have done nothing suggests that even they weren't sure anything bad had happened.Seriously, you people need to get a grip. Hastert won his seat because his predecessor was dethroned by a sex scandal. If you think he was going to cover for Foley's gay teen obsession *and* let the guy run for office again, you're nuts. Foley would have been firmly pushed to retire and "spend time with his family".
Now we know: Revenant is John DerbyshireI don't think John Derbyshire would be criticizing someone for saying "let's hang the gay guy". :)
If you think he was going to cover for Foley's gay teen obsession *and* let the guy run for office again, you're nuts.Well, that's exactly what he did - along with all the Republicans on the Congressional Page Board (they aced out the one Dem).Forced resignations of leading Republicans a couple of weeks before the elections? How sweet it is!
The link you provided says nothing about anyone, Republican or otherwise, knowing Foley "had a thing for the page". Actually, several pages.But you keep up with the denial! It's really, really fucking funny!!!
Quote of the day:Republicans were aghast at Clinton's behavior, with many saying it showed he had lied and abused his power."It's vile," said Rep. Mark Foley, R-West Palm Beach. "It's more sad than anything else, to see someone with such potential throw it all down the drain because of a sexual addiction."
Relevant quote from above link:At least four Republican House Members, one senior GOP aide and a former top officer of the House were aware of the allegations about Foley that prompted the initial reporting regarding his e-mail contacts with a 16-year-old House page.Today's WaPo:House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) told The Washington Post last night that he had learned this spring of some "contact" between Foley and a 16-year-old page. Boehner said he told House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), and that Hastert assured him "we're taking care of it."Maybe I am nuts, Rev, because I do indeed "think he was going to cover for Foley's gay teen obsession *and* let the guy run for office again".The idea, I think, was not to have the gay teen obsession become public.But hey, I'm sure there will plenty more information forthcoming. I'm happy to wait and see how it plays out.
now we have a sex scandal. and republicans' sweaty palms are all over it. but it's not any old sex scandal. no sirry. hmosexuality. pedophilia. cover up. involving a congressman who was involved in passing legislations to protect childrenApparently the individual whom he had the email conversation with was actually 17 at the time.So are the liberals on this board ready to refer to email activity with 16-17 year olds as pedophilia?It should not come as a surprise to liberals connected to the gay community to see middle aged men engaged with 16-17 year old boys. This is par for the course for that community - go read a Tammy Bruce book. Bruce said the major problem with the gay community is that they think sex with 13-14 year old boys is okay. In comparison with the Monica situation, this hardly compares. With Monica, Clinton pointed his finger at all of us and lied his ass off.
So are the liberals on this board ready to refer to email activity with 16-17 year olds as pedophilia?I'm not attached to the "pedophilia" label. Can we just refer to it as something that certain Repubican congressmen are willing to keep in-house, if not engage in personally? That would suit me fine.
"It should not come as a surprise to liberals connected to the gay community to see middle aged men engaged with 16-17 year old boys. This is par for the course for that community - go read a Tammy Bruce book. Bruce said the major problem with the gay community is that they think sex with 13-14 year old boys is okay."Tammy Bruce? Give me a break.Why are we now talking about 13-14 year old boys? This page was 16 (or 17 as some are saying). Foley is guilty of being a stupid, harassing hornball, but he's not a pedophile as far as we know. So we have the amusing spectacle of the left pretending to be scolding sexual moralists and engaging in their usual sophomoric obsession with HYPOCRISY. And on the right we have some of the Republicans revealed as two-faced politicians cynically playing up their social conservative values while covering things up in order not to jeopardize their political power, and at the same time disgustingly deploying the gay equivalent of blood libel- accusing gay men of being either pedophiles or tolerant of pedophiles.In one browser window they're typing polemical weblog comments about how disgusting and perverted it is for a man to be sexually interested in a 17 year old male, while in the other browser window they're popping a boner at TightLolitas.com while their fat wives snore alone in the bedroom. I'm beginning to understand the surge of delicious glee one gets from pointing a finger and screaming HYPOCRISY! I'm just sad that this stupid two-faced bastard made it that much easier for the Democrats to get their sleazy hands on the House in November. But really, these sex-based partisan melees, whether it be the Lewinsky affair or cute butted teenage pages, don't make either party very appealing.
Democrats are in favor of gay rights except when it comes to Republicans talking to teen boys online. What hypocrisy. The worst part about it all is that Foley only did this stuff because George Allen called him a honky.
How stunned do you have to be to conduct an on-line, highly suggestive, communication with an underage teenager? Has he never heard of Dateline? And the hilarious lines he used...so Austin Powers. He certainly made Maxine's evening!
Forced resignations of leading Republicans a couple of weeks before the elections? How sweet it is!While I could care less if that happens, I am very much looking forward to mocking you when it doesn't. :)
tim (7:51) and fenrisulven (10:01):Studds (D-MA) was censured in 1983, as was Daniel Crane (R-IL). So opposite parties, equal punishment.And no one 'forced' Foley to resign, unless maybe it was his own party's leadership. He could have continued running, and had he won would still have the seat-- and very likely he would have gotten the same punishment as Studds and Crane-- censure.After that it would be up to the voters of Foley's district whether they still wanted him or not.So don't read in a 'double standard' where there is not one.
Maybe I am nuts, Rev, because I do indeed "think he was going to cover for Foley's gay teen obsession *and* let the guy run for office again".All you've provided so far is a statement that the house leadership was aware of allegations. Shocking as this concept might be to you, being accused of something doesn't make you guilty. In particular, allegations of sexual misconduct -- rape, child molestation, et al -- are notorious for how frequently they are without substance. There was no reason for the house leadership to assume Foley was guilty unless they found actual evidence of guilt.And there was no such evidence, until ABC publicized the emails and other people volunteered it. The kid *himself* wasn't sure whether he was being hit on or just being paranoid.Foley was from a safe Republican district. A replacement would have had no trouble winning election if he'd had a full campaign season to work on it.So what you are saying, then, is that the House leadership obtained proof that Foley was exchanging dirty messages with gay jailbait -- proof that neither media investigators nor the email kid himself had been able to come up with -- and then, rather than pushing him to retire so a squeaky-clean Republican could be elected in his place, decided to cover up for him (the Republican Party being all about helping gay men stay in the closet) and hope that nothing came of it, even though the kid had been talking to the press.This is your rational explanation for what happened? Er... ok.
Downtownlad had a problem with me stating the obvious - the long tradition of gay pederasty across many cultures. So he said Cedarford - You are bigot of the worst kind. Spreading the worst lies about an oppressed minority, with the goal of drumming up violence against them.Now, no one is advocating violence, just that coupled should watch out for your boys around homosexuals unless you are very, very sure of them - because the prediliction towards pederasty is many, many more times frequent in gays than straights. And pervasive through history in many cultures. Anyone that disputes the gay man's predeliction for "boy lovin'" is welcome to peruse the Wikipedia article on it.Downtownlad likely knows this...and "gay defenders" that howl when this is mentioned as current day truth or historical fact in cultures on 5 Continents do so either to be in denial. Or to make the tradition of pederasty itself PC and acceptable by trying to enforce speech codes against criticizing it - on grounds the truth about chickenhawks will only make "more violence".I especially love their dodge that gay pedophiles pursuing same sex trysts are not gay, just pedophiles...Perhaps they should listen to Tammy Bruce and other gays that warn them that they have a real image problem and risk society's acceptance if they continue to tolerate male gays that wish to advance the old tradition of pederasty involving boys 8-16. It is a big enough problem that it cannot be swept under the rug, cannot be silenced by gay efforts at intimidating people who bring it up - as know-nothing bigots.Too bad, Downtownlad, Palladian, Townleybomb and those others wishing to enforce a "gay negatives are off-limits" speech code. Perhaps the truth hurts. But familes should have a realistic idea of the relative risk of chickenhawks - and their role in spreading AIDs and veneral disease and in child porno and child prostitution. Courts have determined the encounters are damaging in many ways to many of the boys so snared, even adolescent homosexuals that consent.The topic caught my interest on learning that Marlborough, Mass is discussing banning Horatio Alger's Birthplace Day. Alger, famous for his novels of fair-skinned young boys of determination and drive plucked from their working class situation by powerful older men who mentored them to capitalistic success. His local rep was sorta ruined by a 1980 discovery of Unitarian Church papers that Alger was a pedophile. Before his famous novels, he was a Unitarian minister, who the papers revealed was dismissed for unnatural acts involving 3 boys.We got rid of a male teacher who was getting too close to some boys 12-13 in our town, a couple of years ago. A skinny-dipping party at his pool? One kid told his parents about the "invite" and his bags were packed in days.... If you read on the topic of gays and pederasty, you will see it is a real problem, not a false phenomenon created from "bigotry". It even involved the gay's favorite martyr, Oscar Wilde, he of the "love that dare not speak it's name" fame. Queensbury's barristers employed investigators who were able to locate a number of youths with whom Wilde had been involved, either socially or sexually, such as the 16-year-old Walter Grainger and other newsboys and valets. Most damaging of all, among them were a number of young men who had earned money through prostitution. Some of the rent boys (boy prostitutes) or those working class lads Wilde seduced with offers of money for sex were as young as 8, 11 and 12.It was disclosure of Oscar Wilde's numerous acts of pedophilia, not "bigotry" about his deep love of a gay young nobleman, that sent Wilde to prison.If he was doing the same gay predating and pederasty on the scale he did then, today, despite the gay lobby's annointing him some iconic hero and victim of Victorian prejudice - Wilde would be in prison as fast as those convicted Catholic Priests - and any one who had employed him would be sued for millions.So, PC or not, again - families should be wary of gay men drawn to young boys or adolescents. Warier than they are of a straight male - because of the strong tradition of gay pederasty makes the odds of predation significantly higher than with heterosexuals...
Tcd: Fair enough. I (honestly) do not look forward to this being blown out of proportion by Dems either. I wish it would be investigated and dealt with. But let me ask you: What do you think Newt Gingrich would have done if the roles were reversed in 1994?Not saying it is good, fair, or productive, just that this is where our politics are today.
1 - 17 isn't 12. It's not "pedophilia." The word thrown around during the Catholic priest scandals was "ephebophilia" (lusting after teenagers under the age of consent but sexually mature)2 - 17 isn't 12. He isn't a demonic figure for what he did. It is despicable, unforgivable, and criminal. He should suffer the consequences, because it's wrong, but his actions are nowhere near those of someone who actually molests younger victims.3 - Palladian's statement that heterosexual commenters who harshly disapprove of Foley are looking at child porn while they respond to his posts is totally out of bounds.4 - As to whether gays are more likely to pursue underaged sex, I think we should separate seeking partners who are 16+ and those who are younger (one is wrong, the other is despicable and extremely harmful).5 - As to whether gays are more likely to pursue sex with the 16+ set, Andrew Sullivan has written that the answer might be "yes." So it's not an idea entirely grounded in hatred of gays.6 - But it's also true that anti-gay haters have often unfairly tried to portray all or most gays as child-crazed sex fiends. This is a staple of anti-gay demonization.Cedarford wrote: So, PC or not, again - families should be wary of gay men drawn to young boys or adolescents. Warier than they are of a straight maleI disagree about that, for the reason that gay pedophiles often pretend to be straight to get access. Sadly, you have to be wary about everyone who shows undue interest in teenage boys (even women, apparently!).I especially love their dodge that gay pedophiles pursuing same sex trysts are not gay, just pedophiles...You're behind the times, Cedar. The PC thing to do today is to call them straight pedophiles, especially if they pretend to be straight to get access to the boys.
right wingers head exploding in the morning. nothing better really. i'm stripped down and waiting for more action. hasta. la. vista. republicanos.
As much as I'd love to jump into all the personal arguments here, my real question is what sort of district Foley represents. Is it up for grabs now, or is it a "yellow dog" Republican district in which the Republican is going to win, whoever he/she is? Anybody know?
J: Foley had a substantial 48-35 lead over his opponent Tim Mahoney and the race was at the very bottom of the list of races thought competitive this cycle. http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/election_tags/fl_16The district has a partisan voting index of +2.4 Republican, so its well within reach of a Democrat not facing an incumbent. And it seems the party can name a replacement who will get Foley's votes, but Foley's name will stay on the ballot, which may tend to dissuade some people from voting for the Republican candidate.
Doyle said..."This is going to be huge. Hastert may be done."When last I checked, Hastert is done as Speaker. He is serving his fourth Congress as Speaker, and is thus surely inelligible to stand for the post in the 110th?
Simon,If House Republicans had the same principles today that they had in 1994, that would be the case. Butthey don't ."At the beginning of 2003, the Republican caucus eliminated the term limit on the speaker, relaxed the limits on gifts and food to members and staff by about ten-fold, and relaxed restrictions on travel paid by outside sources."
I feel a piping red-hot terror alert coming up.
Daryl Herbert - Good point on the observation that many gay child molesters pose as straights to get them closer to the boys they want. I also tend to agree with you that for straight and gay pedophilia that age is a huge factor that many people and laws on "sexual predators" fail to factor in. There is a tremndous difference between a man assaulting a 10 year old girl and a gay man doing sex acts with a willing 16-year old "lad". I don't even think certain "statutory rape" laws make sense - a 21 year-old meeting a 17 year old at a club who says she's 18 should not fall under a lifetime "sexual predator" registry. I find it hard to even think that should be a misdemeanor, while favoring locking up any man that rapes a 8 year old for life. But I do believe that it goes past wrong, into criminal, when an older man (or woman) in a position of power, as Congressman Foley was - or authority figure like a minister or cop --uses that power and influence over an underage intern, student 16-18 to gain sex.Herbert - But it's also true that anti-gay haters have often unfairly tried to portray all or most gays as child-crazed sex fiends. This is a staple of anti-gay demonization. The problem when a dangerous social problem is affixed by critics to any group - the automatic response of those in denial is to frame it as an attack against ALL in the group as a deligitimizing attack. You know the pattern: Someone says, for example, "The Celts have an alcohol abuse problem higher than the norm in other populations. So do American Indians." The predictable deligitimizing tactic is to call that bigoted because it slurs all Celts and NA's - even though only a miniscule fraction of the critics are saying ALL Celts or NA's are lushes...With gays and pedophilia, obviously ALL gays are not pedophiles, but it is a serious problem in their communities in that:1. The gay culture is not just "youth oriented" but is accepting of man-boy sex and of pederastry.2. While gays are 2-3% of the population, investigators have determined that ~30% of the child prostitution and child pornography is geared to gays.3. A higher proportion of child sex killers are gay than their actual percentage in the population. 4. Studies of underage crime sexual offenders appear to be showing that gay men are 5-7 times as likely to offend as heterosexual men. Gays dispute that with claims that girls or their parents "under-report" age-related sexual offenses, but I think any reporting reluctance would be higher for boys and their parents, even if the boy was gay and willing.5. Rate of disease transmission by gay men to their underage partners or to gay men from gay child prostitutes is much higher than in related heterosexual activities.6. Most chilling, besides gay men being 5-7 times as likely as a group to predate on children or young boys as heteros on opposite sex underaged, the number of victims per gay predator or lifestyle pederast of willing boys is over 7 times as much. So gay men not only are far more likely to engage in criminal sexual activity, they also have a far greater number of victims per pedophile: "The rate of homosexual versus heterosexual child sexual abuse is staggering," said Reisman, who was the principal investigator for an $800,000 Justice Department grant studying child pornography and violence. "Abel’s data of 150.2 boys abused per male homosexual offender finds no equal (yet) in heterosexual violations of 19.8 girls." I don't know what future changes should be done. No expert here. But I do believe in some actions. A. Reject any gay effort to intimidate school officials and parents to be other than exceptionally wary of men taking an unusual interest in boys. B. People should not let gay activists block knowledge of the frequency of gay sex crimes. The media tends to ignore gay pedophilia as "un-PC" to report on, or reports nonsense such as gay activists assurances that straight men are more likely to have sex with boys than gay men are...C. In Congressman Foleys, and certainly in the Churches cases, many, many people had concerns about what appeared to be happening - but were reluctant to confront the pedophile and express those concerns or ask authorities to investigate. An intimidation factor is at work. No doubt several concerned who were thinking about checking up on Foley - were even more concerned that they were under greater risk they would be castigated as "intolerant", on a "anti-gay witch hunt to persecute and "out"an innocent gay man who merely wished to mentor the many boys " so he could protect and help them and serve the cause of child welfare Rep. Foley deeply believes in"...The RC Church admits that several Dioceses kicked themselves in hindsight for not wanting to confront, ignoring signs, covertly welcoming in problem gay Priests whose "boy lusts" were obvious but who did great pastoral work in other areas, then of course, seeking to avoid embarassment by not contacting authorities, keeping it "private", and believing a compulsive molestor saying they won't molest again.D. Families, organizations, and businesses should strive to keep a two-person rule for non-parental adults looking after kids. Not just for prevention, but for liability protection, and protection against false accusations, which are becoming more prevalent. And tell their own kids it is not permitted for them to be alone and secluded with another adult...and the usual "no bad touch" stuff even the PC crowd finds OK.
But he really should be hung.fenrisulven, I'm stunned that you threw out this great straight (cough) line and no one used it.
Cedarford- You seem to have a thing for gays and child molestors. Simply saying something is "un-PC" is not proof of being right. Where are the stats you are siting coming from? (links, the entire name of people you are citing, something...)This country does not have the resources to make sure that adults are never alone with a child. The only thing to prevent child victimization is swift, fair investigation of all allegations. However, due to the fact people's children are involved, these things can become quickly unfair to the accused and to the accuser. Let me be a little "Un-PC", since obviously being Un-PC makes me right about all of my assertions. Why only focus on one sexual orientation that only amounts to approx 3-10% of the population, when you could focus on 50% of the whole population. Someone abusing their position in power to get sexual favors from an underage teenager? Having sex with farm animals? Having sex with another person against their will? Chances are, if you're f*ck*ng someone or something you're not supposed to, you're a man. Why only bash the gays for this?
Cedarford is now the Althouse blog's Clayton Cramer Chair in Being Really, Really Obsessed With Scary Gay Men.Did you know that men are statistically more likely to have penises than any other gender?
I'm quite certain Cedarford is gay. Those obsessed with demonizing gays to such an extent have always turned out to be closted, self-loathing gays - in my experience.It's ok - one day he'll figure it out. Or maybe we'll get lucky and he'll be one of those closeted gay people who blows his head off.
Joe R.-- Cedarford already referenced talk show host Tammy Bruce. Do we really need citations to actual statistics to support a theory when Tammy Bruce has commented on the subject?
cedarford, cite your sources, please. Otherwise, it's just a bunch of words. Widipedia doesn't count; anyone can post and edit wikipedia articles. The Foley story bumped another big story off the news cycle, the one about the heterosexual guy who broke into a high school with a gun and molested six girls before killing one of them. Maybe he was gay and compensating?
If he does site sources, I can guarantee you that it will rely on research from discredited psychologist Paul Cameron. The same Paul Cameron who says that 12% of heterosexuals tried to commit murder.http://www.indegayforum.org/news/show/26867.html
Elizabeth - The kid who shot his principal in Wisconsin, which is different than the story you described, was bullied for being gay.Kind of ironic, because the hateful right-wingers adamantly oppose anti-bullying laws for schools (including George W. Bush), because they think anti-gay bullying is a positive aspect of growing up, and will help encourage students who are questioning their sexuality to become straight.Here's some proof. Some active anti-gay bullying being cheered on by our Attorney General.http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/09/christianism_wa_4.html
dtlad, yes, I'm expecting it will be Cameron. As for a culture of desire for youth, anyone who has ever been a 16-year-old girl can attest to the fact that older men are very, very interested in them. It isn't a matter of political correctness, it's a matter of plain old accuracy.
Did you know that men are statistically more likely to have penises than any other gender?Really, do you have sources for this assertion? I really am tired of people asserting things without any sort of research to back them up.Now I am wondering what a grant application for this study would have to say...maybe you could get a distinguished lecture invitation out of it.
"Now I am wondering what a grant application for this study would have to say...maybe you could get a distinguished lecture invitation out of it."Let's just say I've collected a lot of data.Jeez, what's wrong with me? I guess I really am a sex-obsessed gay man!
Maf54 (7:48:00 PM): did you spank it this weekend yourselfXxxxxxxxx (7:48:04 PM): noXxxxxxxxx (7:48:16 PM):been too tired and too busyMaf54 (7:48:33 PM): wow...Maf54 (7:48:34 PM): i am never to busy hahaDiary entry: Yay! I won! Today will be my first day in Congress! Shopping list:-paperclips-Bic pens-blacklight-bleach
"An attraction to youth is basic to all human sexuality"---townleybombRemember the opening line from Gabriel Garcia Marquez's short story 'Memories of my melancholy Wh%*es'...""The year I turned ninety, I wanted to give myself the gift of a night of wild love with an adolescent virgin." ----by Gabriel Garcia MarquezOne of the greatest opening lines in all of literature.Very evocative.Illegal, but evocative nonetheless.Peace, Maxine
"Lolita, light of my life, fire of my loins. My sin, my soul. Lo-lee-ta: the tip of the tongue taking a trip of three steps down the palate to tap, at three, on the teeth. Lo. Lee. Ta. She was Lo, plain Lo, in the morning, standing four feet ten in one sock. She was Lola in slacks. She was Dolly at school. She was Dolores on the dotted line. But in my arms she was always Lolita. Did she have a precursor? She did, indeed she did. In point of fact, there might have been no Lolita at all had I not loved, one summer, an initial girl-child. In a princedom by the sea. Oh when? About as many years before Lolita was born as my age was that summer. You can always count on a murderer for fancy prose style. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, exhibit number one is what the seraphs, the misinformed, simple, noble-winged seraphs, envied. Look at this tangle of thorns."
Did you know that men are statistically more likely to have penises than any other gender?Ann Coulter the exception of course...
"The district has a partisan voting index of +2.4 Republican, so its well within reach of a Democrat not facing an incumbent. And it seems the party can name a replacement who will get Foley's votes, but Foley's name will stay on the ballot, which may tend to dissuade some people from voting for the Republican candidate."Thanks for the answer and link Joseph.
Cedarford declares,"The gay culture is not just "youth oriented" but is accepting of man-boy sex and of pederastry."What possible factual basis could C. have for this bizarre claim? It's obviously not based on any real familiarity with the gay community. Equally absurd are the other assertions he makes.Judging by the length and detail of C's ignorant ramblings, he seems to have an obsessive interest in this subject. I agree with the diagnosis offered by Palladian & DTL.
It's interesting the way this story is , 24 hours later, being actively back-burnered in the Media.I'd have thought it'd hit critical-mass right about now.....instead it's dying a slow death.Whether that's because of incompetence or inattention (we've all got short-attention spans these days) ....in the Media....I don't know.These kinds of stories were big business in the 80s and 90s...where you could segway from OJ, right into Monica Lewinsky without skipping a beat, and the public would be transfixed and riveted.I guess we're all jaded now and this story barely registers a blip on the radar.If this can't grab anyone, what would someone have to do to get the attention of the American people?Peace, Maxine
Downtownlad says, "I'm quite certain Cedarford is gay... maybe we'll get lucky and he'll be one of those closeted gay people who blows his head off."Later, dtl refers to "the hateful right-wingers".Goodness. Shouldn't one just debate, sneer, or dismiss what another asserts, instead of being such a loving leftist?
Times front page: "GOP Leaders Knew in Late '05 of Email"The quotes from Peter King and Chris Shays are maybe the most telling. As I see it, everyone in the entire chain of information will be fairly judged to have covered for a known predator."How are you weathering the hurricane..are you safe..send me a pic of you as well."The one Democrat on the page committee was not informed. The NRCC was. This is unspeakably awful for the Republican party.
Jim - I had missed that, but I heartily concur in Quin's comment that the term limit was a good idea and should be brought back. Certainly Hastert should not run for a fifth term.downtownlad said..."I'm quite certain Cedarford is gay. Those obsessed with demonizing gays to such an extent have always turned out to be closted, self-loathing gays - in my experience."Since the consensus appears to be that Cedarford should back up his assertions with statistics, I know you'll be able to back up this oft-repeated (and rather counterintuitive) premise. Or should we instead take it on faith, on the basis of the record you have compiled as a neutral, dispassionate observer on this subject?Joseph - he's quoting The Death of Right and Wrong, and although I don't have a copy to hand, IIRC, Bruce supports most of the propositions therein with citations.Maxine Weiss said..."It's interesting the way this story is , 24 hours later, being actively back-burnered in the Media. I'd have thought it'd hit critical-mass right about now.....instead it's dying a slow death."It's dying a slow death because he's already resigned, and the conduct wasn't actually illegal. What are they going to do, hound him to resign again? If Clinton had been caught red-handed re Monica, told the grand jury the truth, and resigned immediately, do you think that story would have hit "critical mass"? Now, to my mind, there's a serious argument that the party was at fault for not doing more, sooner, to put a halt to this (I agree with what I take to be the point of DTL's first post - if the leadership knew about this a year ago, and decided against taking even internal action, something is terribly wrong). The general public evidently disagrees. This is the second big "scandal" that's fizzled out on the Dems this week! These folks can't even play politics right, and they want us to believe that they're fit to govern?
Apparently the leadership thought he was a pervert, but he was their pervert, and therefore deserving of protective silence.I'm not sure this is dying. I guess we'll know in a week. Will any of the Republican leadership have the decency to resign their posts?
Doyle-As you might imagine, I have no particular reason to believe the veracity and ingenuousness of anything that the New York Times says about anything; indeed, if they had a front page story saying the sky is blue, I'd feel the need to walk outside and check. But, with that having been said, and for the record: if the facts line up as the NYT desparately wants them to, I tend to agree with you, and with Chris Shays. Indeed, I'd go further: if the Speaker's office's statement (“No one in the speaker’s office was made aware of the sexually explicit text messages which press reports suggest had been directed to another individual until they were revealed in the press and on the Internet this week”) is false, and if they knew or should have known the extent of this problem, they should not serve in the House, let alone the leadership thereof. I also have to wonder why ANYONE who doesn't have children -- uh, I mean, has not been a parent -- is "allowed ... to remain head of a Congressional caucus on children’s issues."
"Apparently the leadership thought he was a pervert, but he was their pervert, and therefore deserving of protective silence."That's not quite the case. Their position, as I understand it, is that they became aware of internal impropriety, and took steps to halt and punish it. They further maintain that they were unaware of the scale ofI must say that it's fascinating to see how quickly liberals have embraced a definition of impropriety that embraces sexual propositioning between two consenting males, both apparently over the age of consent. Republicans have some credibility to criticize the conduct in this case, but it seems peculiar for liberals to assert that what they defended as a sacrosanct constitutional right in Lawrence v. Texas is unethical behavior if they think they can get a scalp out of it. I don't know who is more contemptible, Foley, or these opportunist liberals who think they can turn this into election fodder.
Simon:Hastert = Cardinal LawThis story has the legs of a champion. I don't know why it's so slow out of the gate.The Boston Globe didn't have anything on it today.WaPo buried it as the last headline in the "below the fold" list.But the explanation that the parents didn't want it pursued contradicts the second explanation that they took Foley's word for it that he was cool.This is just so lurid and goes so high... there's no way the Times story today is the peak.
Simon -The email that all these guys knew about was an unwelcome advance on a high school page.He said it was "sick sick sick" x13. He reported it in the first place.Also, they don't claim to have done any investigating, let alone punishing. They say the parents of the boy didn't want it pursued. They also say that the matter had been satisfactorily dealt with when they told Foley to knock it off.
Simon, speaking just for myself, and I may or may not meet your definition of a liberal, I'm just happy that one less incumbent will be around come Election Day. When the incumbent in question has been quoted in the past harpooning others' sexual pecadilloes, and is now caught in essentially the same trap, well forgive my schadenfreude.
I'm sorry I have to add one more thing that I missed in Simon's post:...these opportunist liberals who think they can turn this into election fodder. Try to turn this into election fodder? Simon, wake up and smell the pedophilia!This is pure, highly enriched election fodder. No assembly required.
"I also have to wonder why ANYONE who doesn't have children -- uh, I mean, has not been a parent -- is "allowed ... to remain head of a Congressional caucus on children’s issues."Is this some sort of "breeder" version of the chickenhawk argument beloved of anti-war types? ;)(Given the subject being discussed, let's not mention the other, older informal definition of "chicken hawk")
Doyle,The way I remember it, Cardinal Law rose to prominence as a civil rights activist, and was a renowned advocate for liberal causes like reconciliation with Cuba, peace in the Middle East, international justice, ecumenism, and halting abortion clinic protests, until he was scapegoated for the sins of others by the persistent habit of humanity to find a single individual at fault onto whom to project everything that was bad (or, for that matter, good - see Lincoln) about an event with many participants.But in any event, I think we're actually in broad agreement tothe extent that, if it turns out there was a cover up, there should be reprisals. The areas we're in disagreement - whether there actually was a cover up and which party should run the investigation - will be resolved by the due course of events.
Palladian,Not really, because someone can become an expert on military affairs without having been in the military, while no one who hasn't had the experience of being a parent can appreciate what's involved. I could've read every book on the subject ever written, and I doubt it would have prepared me for the actual practise of doing it.
Simon -The way everyone else remembers it, Cardinal Law was the guy who knew about priests diddling altar boys and didn't do anything about it.
"Try to turn this into election fodder? Simon, wake up and smell the pedophilia!"If you can be so loose about the definition of pedophilia, don't complain when others are loose with the meaning of "traitor"."This is pure, highly enriched election fodder. No assembly required."Yeah, forget about those unimportant things like issues and philosophies. Let's make creepy sex jokes! Actually, given what happens when voters are confronted with the beliefs of the leftier flank of the Democratic party, you might be wiser talking about this instead of issues, Feindoyle.
"while no one who hasn't had the experience of being a parent can appreciate what's involved. I could've read every book on the subject ever written, and I doubt it would have prepared me for the actual practise of doing it."I don't doubt you on this point, Simon.
Palladian -That may be true, but that's because no issue could possibly be as favorable to Democrats as the sexual predator coverup in the Republican House.Iraq is close, though.
"Try to turn this into election fodder? Simon, wake up and smell the pedophilia! This is pure, highly enriched election fodder. No assembly required."Are you now suggesting that consensual sexual talk between two males is less than a constitutional right? Are you suggesting that Justice Kennedy was wrong to say that "When sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring. The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to make this choice"?Even if this story turns out to be entirely true, you and I could both have the same opinion of Foley, but you would be in no position to criticize his behavior because you - not you personally, but you as a liberal - have no credibility to criticize two consenting adults behaving in such a way. You can't be simultaeneously the party that says that homosexual activity is no different to heterosexual activity, and should be perfectly permissable after an age of consent which should not differ from heterosexuals, AND the party that says Foley did something wrong. To criticize Foley's behavior, you have to believe that there is something per se morally reprehensible about what Foley did, and your party DENIES that in every case but the instant one!
Simon -Let's try this again:Recipient of emails no consenting adult.Recipient 16 year old page who no likey creepy Congressman.
Doyle,Are you now denying that 16 is the age of consent in the District of Columbia?
Simon -No. It is possible for a 16 year-old to legally consent to sex.But the 16-year old who received the email in 2005 didn't "consent" to anything. He just got these creepy emails.The young man or men in the IMs which were released obviously appeared to be consenting, but that doesn't make it necessarily appropriate, asking them to measure their weiners and all...
Doyle,I totally agree. It was inappropriate. But I'm a mean old conservative; I would agree. But you're this big liberal who has a picture of Russ Feingold in his profile pic. So are you now admitting that it's inappropriate for a man who is over the age of consent to peitition another male who is over the age of consent for sex? Are you suggesting that some kind of moral opprobrium attatches to mutually consensual sexual activity between two adults of the same gender? That doesn't seem very liberal of you.
The point is, to put it more explicitly, it isn't that you're wrong in this instance.It's that you're wrong in every other instance that robs you of credibility even when you're right. Have you heard the story of the boy who cried wolf? This is very similar: liberals now attacking Foley are the boys who DIDN'T cry wolf all those times the wolf really was at the door.
"they don't claim to have done any investigating". Not true. Rep Shimkus claims that once he found out about it, he "took immediate action to investigate the matter." Apparently the investigation consisted of interviewing Foley and believing Foley that the e-mails were innocuous. Now that is some investigation. But pretty consistent with believing colleagues like Ney and Cunningham up until the end.
Simon -Foley's activities may qualify for prosecution under the Adam Walsh Child Protection Act, which he co-sponsored, and Hastert lauded as another Republican effort to keep minors (18 and under) safe from internet predators.Were it not for that, he might not have broken any laws. But he was definitely having IM sex with boys who were also his underlings, and the coverup by the House leadership is the real story.
jim -That is true. He did characterize what he did as "investigating." I had forgotten, because as you say it basically entailed just assuming he wasn't really a pervert or anything.Wrong!
Simon -I think this is the first time we've ever discussed gay, underage IM sex. (Thanks, Rep. Foley!)When have I been wrong, as you see it?
Come on, the kid was 16 and he wanted it. Give me a break, this is a non-issue. Besides, it's not like he's the only closet queer in the Republican party; why do you think Jeff Gannon spent so much time in the White House?
But he was definitely having IM sex with boys who were also his underlings, and the coverup by the House leadership is the real story.Boy, you're just running ahead of the evidence by leaps and bounds, aren't you? You haven't even managed to demonstrate the the House leadership had knowledge of illegal activity and you've already moved on to claiming there's been a cover-up.You should be solidly into Vince Foster conspiracy territory by Monday, at this rate. :)
Even if there WERE a cover up, that ISN'T the real story. The heart of this story is whether you think that there is something morally wrong with two men - or two persons where the predator is forty years the senior of the junior - engaging in "IM sex", assuming both are over the age of consent, as is the case here. In the past, IIRC, you personally have expressed the view that this is okay, and certainly, your party has.
They knew that Foley had to be told to leave a page alone a year ago, didn't investigate it, and kept it in the GOP family.That establishes the cover-up, whatever the criminal charges.Don't take my word for it that it's a big scandal. Just watch the news this week.
Simon - Since the consensus appears to be that Cedarford should back up his assertions with statistics, I know you'll be able to back up this oft-repeated (and rather counterintuitive) premise.The only "consensus" is with you and other like-minded people that first name call and accuse anyone that disagrees with you of "BIGOTRY", then does the well-worn debate tactic of trying to shift it to "I'm the Professor, you are the student trying to validate your work and you need to submit proof, citations, references...until I am satisfied you are right and I am wrong..." Which of course any smart student knows is code for "You are wrong and need to change your premises, because no compendium of proof will satisfy me adequately..."The "play the professor" gambit to make those that disagree with your researcher and supplicant is an old debating tactic.Another way of putting it is "I am ignorant of the facts, I can't counter you with facts in rebuttal...so the burden is on you to educate me!" No, it isn't. Not in debate.So, as Downtownlad started this with accusations of BIGOTRY, and refused to acknowledge evidence, lets just get widely acknowledged facts on the table:1. Man-boy "love", or pederasty, is an ancient in origin, traditional homosexual practice that is found in a multiplicity of cultures throughout time - with varying degrees of acceptance or rejection. The facts of it and it's documentation are indisputable. 2. America and the Christian West have generally rejected pederasty as pedophilia and immoral and a crime. 3. Part of gay rights advocacy appears be geared to make pederasty more acceptable. This is evident from gay activist writings on how various gay child porn rings were "ensnared" by homophobic FBI officials, how Oscar Wilde, a notorious chickenhawk - was brought down by bigoted Victorian intolerant Christians simply for writing elegantly with clever bon mots on the "love that dare not speak it's name". [Simon makes an interesting defense of pederasty himself in a subsequent post- I must say that it's fascinating to see how quickly liberals have embraced a definition of impropriety that embraces sexual propositioning between two consenting males, both apparently over the age of consent. So Simon defends an old Queen Congressmen using his clout to pursue a boy intern who is a junior in HS at the time, 16 then 17 years old....as correspondence between two consenting males?? Yeah, NOT THAT THERE IS ANYTHING WRONG WITH THAT!!]4. Gay groups openly advocating pederasty are defended by mainstream gay groups or gay legl advocacy groups in the name of "tolerance". "rights". and "Stop the Violence!!". The ACLU-NAMBLA alliance is notorious.5. People concerned that gay males are 5-7 times likely to be involved in sex crimes with minors, and to have 7-8 times as many victims on average as heterosexual predators - are somehow demonized as "violent bigots".6. Parents justly concerned about protecting their children from either type of sexual predator are angry at any insinuation that their protective urges are based in prejudice.
Cedarford, you are Clayton Cramer, aren't you?
Cedarford,Do you think Simon was attacking you? I thought he was taking some of your critics to task for offering unsubstantiated theories (about your sexuality) without offering authority for the theory when they had requested that you provide citations to authorities. It is fun, however, to see people on the same side hurl invective at each other. Maybe we can get Doyle to call dtl some names too.
But he was definitely having IM sex with boys who were also his underlings, and the coverup by the House leadership is the real story.An unmarried Congressman's cyber sex typing to consensually-aged boy pages, alleged inaction by Congressional GOP leaders without anyone lying to a Special Prosecutor or denying his disgusting behavior to the public and the moral offender then resigning from office is far worse than a married President's Oral Office sodomies with a twenty two year-old intern, even during important phonecalls regarding troop deployments to Bosnia, phone sex with her on numerous occasions before realizing *duh* foreign interests were probably monitoring his communications, perjuring himself in the course of a sexual harassment suit, wagging his finger at us on national TV to deny his illicit behavior, his wife saying on national TV that a hateful rightwing conspiracy was trying to frame her innocent husband, and, after a stained blue dress is produced as evidence and the Prez has to give up DNA to the courts, later saying something about depends on what the definition of "is" is and partisan supporters then saying no-big-deal-it's-just-sex-everybody-lies-about-sex-boys-will-be-boys-and-'the-personal-ISN'T-politics-in-office-power-dynamics-when-it-comes-to-the-hero-feminist-President-Bill, and the harasser stays in office after creating a national disgrace, with Dems ever since excoriating meanie blue-nosed Repubs for going on so about sex- extramarital, promiscuous or gay?Foley's a vile creep and hypocrite. But Dems delighting in this situation don't do so well on those analogy and comparison sections in standardized testing.
It`s no wonder nothing ever gets done in washington, except the pa..I`m sure clinton can relate(willy).You know he`d be sympatheticpathetic...::I`ll stop now:::
They knew that Foley had to be told to leave a page alone a year ago, didn't investigate it, and kept it in the GOP family.They did investigate it. Alexander called the family in question to talk with them about it. No wrongdoing was discovered because there was no wrongdoing to BE discovered -- writing G-rated letters to a 16-year-old is not against the law or contrary to Congressional ethics, even if the 16-year-old thinks the letters are "creepy". The only wrongdoing was the IMs, which weren't known about until last week.And yes, they didn't tell the Democrats about it. So what? Refusing to tell your political enemies about unsubstantied allegations of wrongdoing by a member of your party is not "a cover-up".
The New York Times reports that top House Republicans knew for months about e-mail traffic between Rep. Foley and the former teenage page, but kept the matter secret and allowed Mr. Foley to remain head of a Congressional caucus on children’s issues. According to the Times story, “Among those who became aware earlier this year of the fall 2005 communications between Mr. Foley and the 16-year-old page, who worked for Representative Rodney Alexander, Republican of Louisiana, were Representative John A. Boehner, the majority leader, and Representative Thomas M. Reynolds of New York, chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee. Mr. Reynolds said in a statement Saturday that he had also personally raised the issue with Speaker J. Dennis Hastert.”The term chickenhawk has recently been used in reference to Rethuglicans who support the Iraq war despite having avoided military service or duty themselves, e.g., George W. AWOL, Cheney, DeLay, Frist, etc. Will it now revert to its more traditional, pejorative meaning?BTW, has the Cheerleader-in-chief commented? How about Jerry Falwell, whose organization fretted about what Tinky Winky does with the genitalia that it does not have. For that matter, has our blog hostess written even one disapproving word of her newfound partisan friends, apart from the cryptic and ambiguous "folly"?Ann, did your head finally explode from cognitive Republican dissonance?
Ann, If it has no breasts,Are you unimpressed?You choose not to talkof Mark Chickenhawk.Did you lose your nerveAbout the GOP perv?Do you like green eggs and ham?
Cedarford strikes again with another rant, composed as usual by stringing together condemnatory statements supported by nothing but his own fantasies. Why is he so obsessed with this topic? Why is he investing so much mental energy in projecting his unsavory interests onto the gay community? It's probably a case of "Qui accuse, s'excuse."
John in Nashville: When have a shown the slightest support for social conservatives or for that matter for the Republican Party as a group? I've voted as a Democrat all my life. Aside from voting for Ford in 1976 (when I felt overwhelmed by mistrust of Jimmy Carter as I was walking to the polling place and switched sides at the last minute), Bush in 2004 (for national security reasons), and for Tommy Thompson (one time when the opponent was too far to the left), I've voted entirely for Democrats, including voting for Russ Feingold every time he's run (and giving him money). So WTF are you talking about? Or are you just one of those people who can't deal with the fact that the Democratic party is trying to kick people like me out?
Or are you just one of those people who can't deal with the fact that the Democratic party is trying to kick people like me out? So... you're in? You consider yourself a Democrat?You often recite your Democratic voting record, Ann, but you do realize that having voted for Bush in 2004 complicates matters.In a bloggingheads appearance, you said it was "a little something called September 11" (and probably some understandable reservations about Kerry) that made you do it.I don't find it hard to believe that you've voted for Democrats in the past, but on the pressing matters of the day, you do seem to accept, if not promote, the Bush/neocon approach to the War on Terror.Your relationship with the Right blogosphere is cozy. Your relationship with the left blogosphere is much less so. Since I've been reading your blog, and granted it hasn't been that long, you've struck me as functionally pro-Bush.
It's time for that re-indoctrination camp, Ann. Your political impurity and individuality are showing, and the collective isn't happy.
Nobody is saying she needs reindoctrination.Maybe she's just operating so deep undercover that she appears to have adopted Republican talking points.Did you see how crazy Clinton was when asked why he did nothing to stop 9/11?Unhinged!
"Your relationship with the Right blogosphere is cozy. Your relationship with the left blogosphere is much less so."Because the right is looking for converts and the left is looking for heretics. It's obvious that the right has the better strategy. Is the goal of the Democrats to lose elections? And look at how you just pretty much conceded that the Democrats can't meet my national security concerns.
I can't get over the enthusiasm for keeping me out of the party. Great move, losers.
Because the right is looking for converts and the left is looking for hereticsWelcome Aboard Ann. This is a Big Tent [pardon the pun].
I can't get over the enthusiasm for keeping me out of the party.Keeping you out of the party? We were trying to kick you out like, two comments ago! Which is it? Are you a heretic or a convert?Great move, losers.So, convert then?[Sigh]We'll just have to muddle through.
It's obvious that the right has the better strategy. For what exactly? Winning the war on terror? Um no, completely botched. Getting Bin Ladin, the mastermind of 9-11? Oh wait, nope. Promoting tough interrogation policies. Well, yeah, but the practical reality is that torture isn't effective (nevermind the fact that it is un-American). Bringing the world community together in the effort to fight radical extremism? No, not that one. The NIE says it's getting alarmingly worse. Stopping Iran from getting nuclear weapons? No, not working. Balancing the budget? Oh wait, nope. Fixing social security? Oh gee, that didn't work. But wait, I got it: Demonizing Democrats and anybody else who criticizes the Administration. We have a winner! Bush and the republicans have been mightily successful on this front.Funny, if you pay attention to Althouse's blog, that is where she excels too. Alhouse at the end of the day has been a Bush apologist. But now she is playing the pathetic line that the crazy lefties have "keeping me out of the party" line. Give me a freakin break. Althouse: You're the loser. And we don't want losers like you in the Democratic party. The loser tent is is the one you're standing in, the red one.
Doyle: Obviously, I don't currently feel included in what the party has become. I don't identify myself as a member of either party. I dislike them both, actually. I do however think the things that are bad about the Democratic party are more dangerous.Brando: "'It's obvious that the right has the better strategy.' For what exactly?"You do know how to read statements in context and presumably you're attempting a rhetorical move. If not, reread. If so, it's not spiffy enough to overcome how boring your trotting out of talking points is.
things that are bad about the Democratic party are more dangerous.Well heck, Ann, if these bad things are not just bad but dangerous, why don't you spend more time talking about them, or at least identifying them clearly?If Democrats are really going to make America less safe, don't you have sort of an obligation to undermine their chances at election?Surely that would be more productive than just attacking the lunatic fringe.
Brando said...Cedarford - As Jim noted, in both the comments of mine that you quoted, you entirely missed my point. As, indeed, Doyle continues to do, which is that I do think there is something wrong with what Foley did, but I don't think that people who don't usually find anything wrong with two consenting adults engaging in such behavior can credibly condemn it now. "Althouse: You're the loser. And we don't want losers like you in the Democratic party. The loser tent is is the one you're standing in, the red one."Funny how the people in that loser tent keep on winning elections, isn't it? Perhaps it has something to do with the quality of our tent and the inability of yours to keep the rain out...Doyle said..."If [you think] Democrats are really going to make America less safe, don't you have sort of an obligation to undermine their chances at election?"I agree. It's a little bit chickenshit, actually - I readily agree with Ann that "the things that are bad about the Democratic party are more dangerous", but while I understand her "both parties suck" prevarication (heck, two in three Americans probably share that view), I think Doyle's basically right. There is some cognitive dissonance between the saying that the Democratic party is dangerous to American security and society, and an unwillingness to do what it takes to stop them obtaining power and consummating that danger into folly. It's one thing to sit on the fence when you have an equally green field on either side, but every two years, the fence retracts into the ground, and you've got to jump into one field or another. Either the Democrats are too dangerous to be allowed into office, or they are not. In roughly a month, it's make your mind up time.
Simon: Thanks for calling me a chickenshit liar...Anyway, there's nothing for me to do here in Wisconsin in the coming election. If it weren't for the gay marriage and death penalty questions on the ballot, I probably wouldn't vote. The Republicans don't bother to put up strong enough candidates here. Does anyone even know the name of the person running against Senator Kohl? Who's up against Tammy Baldwin? Do these people have the slightest chance? For governor, they put up a social conservative. What Republican am I supposed to be supporting here and why?
I certainly didn't call you a liar, and for that matter, I didn't call your position chickenshit - I said that I agree with Doyle that if one thinks that Democrats would make America less safe, one can't be sanguine about their chances of winning. But that's not really your position, is it? I think that your ambivalence here is a little at odds with the overall ethos of your blogging, which has been that you voted for Bush beacuse you felt that John Kerry would make us less safe. I don't think you want to sign up to be a Republican, but at the same time, I think you understand (unlike Doyle, Feingold et al) full well the stakes, and the consequence of Democratic victory. Hence, I have to assume, the rather less than ringing endorsement of Tammy Baldwin (her opponent, BTW, is Dave Magnum) and Herb Kohl (whose opponent, Bob Lorge, is not really a serious candidate, but against whom, you'll recall, I suggested that you should run against. ;)).Even in a blue district in a blue state, there is plenty you can do, because you have genuinely national reach, and you do it routinely - you bring to bear eloquent criticism of the Democratic party's total incapacity to govern.
Simon: "you bring to bear eloquent criticism of the Democratic party's total incapacity to govern."And the Republicans have the "capacity to govern"? Seriously, how have things changed in Washington since Republicans took over in 1995. Clinton declared that the era of big government is over; but the Republicans have resuscitated that era and expanded it. I understand (while not agreeing with) the argument that Dems "don't get" the war on terror (as made by Brooks in a post Ann blogged about last week) but saying that Republicans have the "capacity" to govern effecticvely is not, in my view, self-evident.
Jim,For all the numerous faults of the party at the present time, for all its abandonment of core pinciples, its mounting corruption and ideological lethargy, better this shower than the Dems.
What Republican am I supposed to be supporting here and why?What year is it? When's Jello?
For all the numerous faults of the party at the present time, for all its abandonment of core pinciples, its mounting corruption and ideological lethargy, better this shower than the Dems.So you pretty much admit that republicans under the mantle of the religious right have dropped a collective turd on the US in almost every possible respect. It is a sad affair, but i agree with you. No doubt democrats don't have all the answers, but an honest person can't possibly believe that maintaining the status quo is going to help things. Just sayin...
So you pretty much admit that republicans under the mantle of the religious right have dropped a collective turd on the US in almost every possible respect.I didn't see any mention of the religious right in Simon's post. Perhaps you hallucinated it. In any case, none of the perceived failures of the current Republican leadership -- the war in Iraq, the drug benefit, and the binge in government spending -- have anything to do with the religious right. No doubt democrats don't have all the answers, but an honest person can't possibly believe that maintaining the status quo is going to help things.I'd be happy if the Democrats didn't have answers. My problem is that they DO have answers, and every single one of those answers is stupid, wrong, evil, or some combination of the three. That's why I'm stuck voting Republican -- even if they're wrong on 99 out of 100 issues, thats one better than the Democrats ever manage.
revenant, it's heartwarming that you accept a 1% success rate in your government.Simon, Dave Magnum may be on the ballot, but I've yet to hear a peep out of him. Of course, there are still 5 weeks 'til the election.
MadisonMan said..."revenant, it's heartwarming that you accept a 1% success rate in your government."It's one thing to accept a 1% success rate, but quite another when the choice is between a party that delivers 1% and a party that delivers <1%. And that is the choice, as many of us see it."Dave Magnum may be on the ballot, but I've yet to hear a peep out of him. Of course, there are still 5 weeks 'til the election."I have no doubt that he's running as a sacrificial lamb, and is probably keenly aware of that fact, but that doesn't mean that he's an entirely pro forma candidate. I'm a huge believer that even when you have an unbeatable opponent, neither party should ever just roll over and concede, as the Dems here in Indiana have against Richard Lugar. So I dunno, I don't doubt that the odds are stacked against Magnum, but he's there and surely is deserving of support, even if for no other reason than because of his opponent's record and his opponent's party's "impeachment and surrender" platform.
revenant, it's heartwarming that you accept a 1% success rate in your government.The word you're looking for is "acknowledge", not "accept". Just because I cannot reasonably expect better results doesn't mean I have to be happy about what I'm getting. :)
"Ann" is probably not even a woman, let alone a Dem. It is common MO for thug trolls to pretend to be Dem.No Dem would vote for Bush. It's completely absurd. Yet we had astroturf "Dems" and "Independents" campaign for thug Mittwit Romney in MA during his run for Gov.Read any number of comments/replies online and you will see this MO over and over.
Post a Comment