Ashley Gallo, a 21-year-old former page who is now a senior at Western Michigan University, said on Sunday that many of her friends had viewed Mr. Foley as one of the few lawmakers who made a real effort to reach out to young people.How sad for a young person to hear that the one adult who was nice to them was actually more cruelly selfish that all the aloof ones. What a harsh lesson! People are cold, and anyone who isn't is out to take advantage of you. Unfriendly is the norm, so you should assume a friendly adult wants sex.
“You didn’t have a lot of interaction with the members because most of them treated you like a kid, but he was pretty friendly,” said Ms. Gallo, who served as a page in 2001. “He would talk to people,” she said.
“He would say, ‘Here’s my e-mail address if you want to keep in touch.’ I don’t think anyone thought anything of it. They saw him as a mentor or a reference.”
Foley has checked out of Congress (and into rehab -- in that classic plea for sympathy and understanding). But the Foley story maintains its grip. It breaks so soon before the election. How can -- why should? -- Democrats resist doing everything they can to hurt Republicans with this? A good Washington scandal becomes a big swirling whirlpool that excites us onlookers as each new victim topples in and flails. Of course, there's profuse salivating over on the pro-Democrat blogs. Democratic leaders in the House have made their moves:
...Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the Democratic leader, called on Republican leaders to be questioned under oath by the ethics committee about their handling of the case....So it seems in the run-up to the election we won't have to talk about Iraq and terrorism and detainees anymore. Let's talk about sex.
Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, also called for an investigation by the Justice Department. “The allegations against Congressman Foley are repugnant, but equally as bad is the possibility that Republican leaders in the House of Representatives knew there was a problem and ignored it to preserve a Congressional seat this election year,” Mr. Reid said. The public deserves “a full accounting for this despicable episode,” he added....
“Its been a time bomb from Day 1,” said a Republican strategist who is close to the party’s Congressional leaders and the White House and who was granted anonymity to speak freely about internal party concerns. “Now, it’s sad for the whole House.”
The Democratic National Committee seized on the scandal, sending out a scathing statement that raised pointed questions about Mr. Hastert and other Republican leaders. In bold red type, the dispatch asked: “What did Coach H and his buddies know and when did they know it?”
Posts
104 comments:
Jiminy Christmas, Ann.
IT'S NOT ABOUT "SEX"
It's about the Republican leadership knowing that Foley was chasing pages, and not doing anything about it.
It's about them covering for him rather than risking his seat and embarassing the party.
Hastert's clearly lying about having no recollection of being informed, and his call for a DOJ investigation is just a stall tactic.
And since when do you get away with accusing other bloggers of prurient interest in sex?
If you still haven't gotten over Lewinsky-gate ("you need to take what he [Clinton] did seriously!"), you should really brace yourself for Page-gate.
Maybe I am naive (and maybe just cynical), but I don't see this having much of an impact on the election past Foley's seat.
Democrats and the far left that drives them were gonna vote Dem before this happened, just as Republicans were gonna vote Republican, and I don't see many undecided types falling one way or the other based on this. Gas prices have more impact than this any day.
I do wish I had doyle's amazing ability to tell when someone is "clearly lying" based on news reports. I could clean up at carneys for sure.
Will President Bush start looking old again?
One thing is clear: it's so much easier to talk about sex. Iraq is so complicated, so many potential outcomes, so many deaths, so many missed opportunities, so much mismanagement. Even the most uninformed voter can understand the Foley Saga.
Even the most uninformed voter can understand the Foley Saga.
Except Ann, apparently.
The way you know that Hastert is clearly lying is that Reynolds, and originally Boehner, said they informed him of the emails and subsequent cease-and-desist order to Foley in 2005.
The Hinderaker defense is that Hastert is a busy man and wouldn't remember because it was known that Foley was gay so what's the big deal?
I submit that someone willing to believe that Hastert has no recollection of Foley's past improprieties is a sheep in the finest Republican tradition.
Yes, it's about sex. Money scandals sometimes catch the public eye, especially if there are bags of money in the freezer, but nothing really sticks like a sex scandal.
People are cold, and anyone who isn't is out to take advantage of you. Unfriendly is the norm, so you should assume a friendly adult wants sex.
Do you mean the lesson they will take, or should take? Your experience or worldview, one that would be useful, or ????
Not a challenge, Ann, either way; it's just that those are an interesting, and even perhaps elliptical, couple of sentences. This is one of those occasions when I'd love to have been inside your mind when you wrote at least that part of the post.
Hmmm.
I just think the sexual proclivities of one Rep are not going to do much one way or the other in this election except maybe lose Foley his seat.
More people who don't understand the story! I thought it was easy!
This is just another example of Republicans doing anything necessary to preserve their power, even covering for a pervert.
The Republican congress is basically a slush fund for their cronies in the energy, defense, and Indian casino businesses.
There's nothing else there.
Shanna, what you say is true is the Leadership followed through on their knowledge of what was going on. Apparently, they didn't.
Do you expect your leaders to turn a blind eye to this kind of thing? I don't.
It's about the Republican leadership knowing that Foley was chasing pages, and not doing anything about it.
Sadly, this is the position Democrats have taken on this issue. It is a smart tact. Unlike Democrats, republicans severly punish their own for being hypocritical on moral principles. It could be enough to get Democrats majorities on election day. It is good partisan ammunition.
Nevertheless, a Democratic majority in Congress put in place by voter's hatred of Bush and temporarily disgust of Mark Foley will be a very weak majority - and everyone will know it including those in Congress. Democrats will be able to do nothing with their thin majority but investigate Bush (maybe not even that) and prepare for the next election. In 2008, Democrats will be without two things: George Bush and Mark Foley.
If Democrats win this November, I actually think the investigations of Bush will help Republicans and will help Bush. I am confident Bush is clean (as the Plame case and his own personality indicate). None of the reporting done by Bush's critics (Woodward et al) indicates that Bush is a parinoid type (like Clinton) that would lead him to problems within his Administration. Thus, any investigations will re-unify Republicans (the immigration issue split Republicans up).
The big down side to the Democratic majority will be the war funding. Bush may have to go up and beg Congress just as Gerry Ford did in 1975. However, politics may make such funding much easier as Democrats would be the ones defending their razor thin majorities.
And... if Democrats do not gain a majority in the House or Senate, it will be one of the greatest political failures in American history - a lot is on the line for the Democratic party this fall.
I guess that's true, peter.
The weakness for underage boys is the sizzle.
The fact that the Republican leadership knew is the steak.
Hypocrisy at its finest.
If Dems wnat to make this all about what the GOP leadership knew, lets explore what the Dem leadership knew about their own Dem reprobates.
Can anyone say that Ted Kennedy doesn't have a closet (and garage and basement and attic) full of behaviors that fellow Dems should have called him on?
I say its open season on secrets.
the democrats could be in as much trouble as the republicans if they sat on the story to make an impact on the elections
I agree that they would be equally culpable if they had evidence and sat on it.
But is there any reason to think they did (or would have the discipline to)?
Shanna -
He resigned immediately. Brush up on this, will ya?
I'm not naive enough to believe that if the shoe were on the other foot this would not be happening, but its getting silly. Whenever any news (or even some unsourced book by Woodward)that can be spun against Bush, the administration, Republicans in Congress, it sets off a very predictable round of the same old faces saying the same old things.
Is this all they have to offer?
Unlike Studds, Frank, Condit, or Clinton.
Did the House Leadership know about things a year in advance with Studds, Frank, and Condit and turn a blind eye? Also, as far as I can recall, those three (Clinton too) were not chasing minors.
I feel there is a real anti-incumbent undercurrent out there. And this will add fuel to it so we may see some surprising upsets.
And I say so what? Would the republicans really miss guys like Hastert? I sure won't.
Unlike Studds, Frank, Condit, or Clinton.
What about William Jefferson, he is caught on camera taking a bribe, yet he is running for re-election. How is the democratic leadership able to reconcile that? Or Alcee Hastings, a convicted felon for perjury who was removed as a judge by the Senate (how often does that happen). Yet he gets re-elected
There is no excuse for a coverup unless the underage victim and his parents don't want to pursue the matter.
Take the hook out of your mouth.
What about the parents of the pages who still had to work for/around him?
The "respect for the parents wishes" is garbage, and it contradicts their assertion that there wasn't anything to investigate.
Why hasn't ABC reported the name of the 17 year old IM recipient. After all ABC got the IM messages from this individual. He is an adult now. What kind of reporting is that? Why is his identity being protected?
twm -
I only assume a Republican coverup in this case because they (except Hastert, for the time being) admit to having known about Foley for months or years.
The 2001-2002 page class was also warned about Foley, but just the ones who were sponsored by Republican reps.
Sloanasaurus: Unlike Democrats, republicans severly punish their own for being hypocritical on moral principles.
...as vividly illustrated by their covering for Foley as he served as co-chairman of the Committee on Missing and Exploited Children!
You know, we're talking about different things here.
There are emails.
There are IMs.
The emails were known before. There's really nothing much to them. They were brought to some people's attention way back when, but the kid's family didn't want to press it and wanted their names kept out of it.
So Foley was told to be careful and not to even give a hint of impropriety.
That was then.
This is now.
These emails were posted on a website. Foley's opponent called for an investigation. ABC's the Note got wind of it and posted. Then someone handed ABC those IM's. Word got out about the IM's and Foley resigned.
The IM's have the stuff in them. Not the emails.
As far as I know, all Hastert knew about was the emails.
"How can -- why should? -- Democrats resist doing everything they can to hurt Republicans"
Barney Frank.
Bill Clinton.
Gerry Studds
That DHIMMIcRAT who screwed a page, refused to resign, turned his back on the House when they rebuked him, and ran for reelection over and over until he retired.
That's 4 and counting.
syl -
Thank you for laying out Hastert's case. That is indeed the crucial distinction made in his request for an investigation, and his attempt to make it an issue of the explicit IMs (which the leadership can plausibly deny knowledge of) rather than the "over friendly" emails (which they can't).
All I can say is it hinges on people believing that there wasn't sufficient reason to notify people (esp. on the page board) about the email incident.
The emails were not explicit, but they did include a request for a "pic", which I think you'll agree is a red flag.
They also thought it was serious enough to put Foley on notice, and order him to cut off contact with that page.
As I've said before, the deferring to the parents wishes is an incredibly weak explanation for why they didn't investigate Foley, and there's now evidence they knew about him as early as 2001.
I'm not sure the intense focus on the truly shocking IMs will exculpate Hastert and Co., but it is certainly their best bet.
Greenwald has (much) more.
Are we to believe that not one Democrat leader in the house had heard of this situation?
Yes. The relevant Democrat that shares oversight of the Page Program with Rep. Shimkus (R-IL) was not told. I don't recall his name, but he's from Michigan.
Why would the Republican leadership tell the Democratic Leadership about this anyway?
I think the angle the Dems are putting on this story is implausible. If the Republican leadership really had reason to think Foley was dangerous, I have to believe they would have taken action to get him to quietly retire early and not wait for this story to blow up a month before elections. But as implausible as it is, I think the story has legs because its a sex scandal and everyone loves a sex scandal and because its got lots of juicy bits of irony like Foley's moralizing criticism of Clinton's intern scandal, Foley's role as chair of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children, Foley's statements and legislative work on internet child sex predators. On the merits, the story should not hurt the GOP leadership, but its just too good a story for partisan Democrats not to exploit and for the public not to eat up.
...as vividly illustrated by their covering for Foley as he served as co-chairman of the Committee on Missing and Exploited Children!
I guess I don't really get the Hastert/Republican leadership conspiracy. Should the house leadership have published the emails? Who owned the emails? Could the parents of the 17 year old prohibit their publication? Should they have turned the emails over to Pelosi?
What Congressman on the Hill will ever even directly talk to a page again? I sure wouldn't - in case you would be accused of impropriety. An unfounded accusation is enough to cause trouble.
The Congress should abandon the page program. It does more damage than good. Hastert should announce this tomorrow.
On the merits, the story should not hurt the GOP leadership
What about them knowing Foley went after pages and not doing anything about it?
I mean how far into the sand do your collective bulletheads go?
As for the emails, bloggers are now speculating (and demonstrating) how some of them are altered.
http://passionateamerica.blogspot.com/
It's ridiculous to assert that Hastert or any Republicans in leadership knew about this a long time ago, as early as 2005.
Boehner (Majority Leader), Reynolds (NRCC), Shimkus, Alexander, and about a half-dozen others have acknowledged they knew in 2005 that Foley had sent inappropriate emails to pages.
Given that, how ridiculous can it be to assert as much?
It's easy to chalk it up to the highly charged atmosphere in DC.
You folks are priceless!
Doyle, Why be such a jerk? Bulletheads?
I'm personally all for the Dems taking control of the House and if that comes from making hay out of a sex scandal, so be it. I just don't see from the evidence presented so far that the GOP leadership clearly did anything wrong given that there was never any sexual contact and that the earlier communications they knew of were ambiguous. Especially now that so much of our informal communication is recorded electronically in perpetuity, I don't think a vaguely suggestive email written by a congressman to a page is grounds for cracking down on him. And I think they had every political motivation to deal swiftly with that kind of thing so as to avoid scandal, so I don't understand why they would not take action if they had the slightest indication that he was dangerous.
Do your own homework, Paul.
sloan, if I were a parent of a page who was improperly contacted by a Congresscritter, and parents of a previous page knew of the Congresscritter's activity, I'd certainly be wondering why they didn't try to shield others' children.
From what the NYTimes article said, Foley was one of the few who were nice to Pages, who apparently are all but invisible to other members -- although I can't believe the Wisconsin Reps aren't at least polite to them. So I doubt Congressmen/women will change their behavior over this.
Wouldn't surprise me if larger fish than Foley were caught up in this.
But excuse me if I don't leap to convict someone (i.e. Hastert) b/c of early reports and NYTimes articles.(remember their Iraq coverage?)
As the cries from the left shriek ever louder -- "They knew! They knew!" -- I recall the old phrase "what did they know and when did they know it."
With politics having so much in common with poker, it's unfortunate that Democrats always overplay their hand. See Alec Baldwin's entry at HuffPo.
And John in Nashville has a point -- silly of Foley to try the ol' alcoholic, finally-getting-help ploy. That only works for Hollywood and the Kennedy family.
Unless Foley is going to go the whole "I'm a Gay American" route and now campaign for gay marriage, he's toast.
Boehner (Majority Leader), Reynolds (NRCC), Shimkus, Alexander, and about a half-dozen others have acknowledged they knew in 2005 that Foley had sent inappropriate emails to pages.
The emails only appear inappropriate now after we have seen them in the context of the IMs. A request for a picture, does seem odd, however, it is not on its face inappropriate.
If you were Denny Hastert should you assume that Foley is gay and was requesting the picture because he wanted to have sexual relations with the page? Maybe so - its good to be safe. Should we assume that gay scout leaders will make sexual advances towards their scouts - maybe so. Its good to be safe.
Foley is fair game. Republicans bombed Clinton for all he was worth, now it's the Democrat's turn. The irony is particularly sweet, since Clinton's actions were particularly damaging vis-a-vis Democratic advocacy of feminism, and Foley vis-a-vis gay rights.
Any investigations that come out of this mess will force more government transparency. Just as media prosecution the Valerie Plame leaks led to the criminalization of leakers, this will lead to less privacy protections for Congressmen.
Both developments, I believe, are good for the national interest, and should be encouraged.
So I doubt Congressmen/women will change their behavior over this.
You have to be joking. This will send a chill through Congress. Congress should end the program. It's too easy now to make an accusation. Besides, why not hire real employees for these jobs. When I worked on the hill, the pages seemed from a by-gone era. A bunch of stuckup pimply kids. Its a worthless program and should be shut down.
The emails only appear inappropriate now after we have seen them in the context of the IMs.
False. The kid complained that they were "sick sick sick" and they interviewed Foley about them and told him to cut off contact.
For your retro pleasure: remember Bob Bauman? Same scandal, different time. No e-mail in 1980. Maybe Foley can find work as an offshore money manager like Bauman did.
Sloan,
...but not for terrorists. Foley should have been water-boarded to get to the truth. The Party of Smut, that only yesterday called girls "young women" having the right to abortion without parental notification and turned a blind eye to a sexual abuser in a civil rights case, giving us another example of 20/20 hindsite, Six Sigma righteousness!
When My Side can't keep his fly zipped, He's Only Human.
When the Other Side is caught with his pants down, it's evidence They Are Pure Evil.
Meh.
Clinton, Kennedy, Studds, Frank. All were treated differently than Foley, though all misused their office for sex with subordinates.
I am heartened, nevertheless, that hypocricy is still the homage that vice pays to virtue. People are still shamed by this behavior, and it speaks of cultural norms that I feared were long extinct. Maybe standards persist after all.
So the Democrats can enjoy while Foley crawls away. The crisis of Inappropriate Sex will come around to them soon enough.
I'm just glad this still bothers people.
Paul-
Do you know the distinction between a fact and a distinction?
Only in Bushworld could the later discovery of separate, and horrifyingly explicit messages between Foley and teenage boys be taken as a positive sign for the guys who kept his problem quiet.
It's obvious Foley is gay. Perhaps he and Barney Frank had a liason... oh wait, Barney was busy paying a prostitute for that....Maybe he was using the cash he had hidden in his refrigerator... oh wait that is Cong. Jefferson, now running for re-election in Louisana.
I just love the Dem-sided comments on this...
Selective memory at it's finest. But if you call them on a specific, they'll claim "That's different... that was a consenting adult homosexual pimp he had in his house".. or something else for someone else.
Ask the next righteous Dem if he's willing to face up to a full investigation on just WHO might have had the facts and damning evidence 9 months ago... and who waited till now to release them?
And why.. if he's a danger and embarrassment to the office, why wait to fill the papers?
If I were Hastert, I would hire Gary Studds as an advisor. He sure knew how to stay elected despite having sex with pages of the same sex.
Unfriendly is the norm, so you should assume a friendly adult wants sex.
I don't know if I would go that far. For one thing it could discourage people from talking to a member of the clergy (who, despite a handful of well publicized cases, are in general very good about helping young people.) Also, in my own job (which is the same as yours, Ann) I meet a lot of young people who are very bright and who I am happy to help out-- but that doesn't mean I am interested in anything other than helping them out. I take it from what you wrote that you are unfriendly and aloof then from your students (I'm pretty sure you're not the other end of what you wrote).
I didn't mention the distinction because it's BOGUS!
It's just Hastert's Hail Mary to try to justify not doing anything about Foley.
I wouldn't lie to you, Paul.
"People are cold, and anyone who isn't is out to take advantage of you. Unfriendly is the norm, so you should assume a friendly adult wants sex." That's intended to be read in context as the sad message Ashley Gallo was left to perceive, not a big generalization of mine. Though I do note that adults might feel compelled to be aloof and cold to the young out of fear that friendliness is suspect.
At a minimum, adults would do well not to ask kids to "measure it."
Also, it appears from your post that you believe that the Democrats are picking on 'poor Denny Hastert' for political gain.
Well, the problem is that Hastert himself has pulled the grandmother of all flip-flops, when in the space of a few hours he went from ignoring this problem to trying to take the lead in the righteous crusade, insisting on criminal charges in a futile attempt to get it under control by heading it off.
As I wrote in my own blog post on this linked here,
I fear for the speaker's health. Within a few hours he has gone from not thinking this was a serious problem to calling it 'an obscene breach of trust' and demanding a criminal probe. With a flip-flop that fast, it would be like throwing a car that is going sixty miles an hour into reverse gear. Aside from risking the destruction of his vehicle (in this case any credibility the House Republican leadership has left post-DeLay), Hastert risks a severe case of whiplash.
Republicans can complain all you want about Democrats wanting to score political points on this, but coming from a party that only a few years ago tried to impeach the President of the United States for lying about sex with a consenting adult, this is like a juvenile delinquent who has been out tagging the neighborhood with grafitti complaining because his car got a parking lot ding.
And let's not forget either that it was Mark Foley's decision to resign. Had he wanted to fight it, most likely he would have gotten a censure, as was the case with Dan Crane (R-IL) and Gerry Studds (D-MA) who were both censured in 1983 for having sexual relations with underage Congressional pages.
Was there actually any sex involved? At this point it appears that there wasn't, just the suggestion or description. Unlike, well... you know who, who "didn't have sex with that woman" because he didn't fellacio a sexual act.
And why is it that a lot of the people talking about this don't seem to know the difference between emails and instant messages? Is it possible their knowledge is a bit limitted in other areas as well?
Let's wait and see. If it turns out that there was no actual sexual activity, and not even any suggestive messages until after the pages were no longer in Washington, this might be a tempest in a teacup.
Not that there's nothing wrong with that. But if the Dems overplay in they'll not only fail to capitalize, but might even cause a backlash.
pettyfog, I don't know if I'm a righteous Democrat, but I'd be happy to see the investigation you suggest. Clarity in government is important.
Watching the above debate, I conclude:
-- The potential political impact of this scandal will be the supression of votes from Republican family-values voters who will see Hastert and the leadership as massive hypocrites. You could make the case that Hastert was "condoning" precisely the kind of gay behavior that homophobes fear most -- that gay men are looking to exploit and convert confused teenage boys. That can't be very comforting to the type of voter who worries about gays more than Islamo-fascists.
-- A secondary impact will be to suppress the votes of pro-business and pro-military Republicans who think the GOP leadership exemplifies the kind of hard-headed, no-nonsense management style they favor. Clearly Hastert is a terrible manager. This case is only the latest manifestation of incompetence by a leader who is swayed by a misplaced compassion for his charges. The reaction to the Jefferson search warrant, his resistance to any efforts to constrain pork-barrel spending are of a piece with his response to this scandal. An intelligent manager would have seen instantly the human as well as political implications of having a guy like Foley at large in a sea of teenage boys, and would have laid down the hammer. (Speaking of hammers, where was Tom DeLay in all this?)
-- This issue won't make a difference to issue-oriented voters. If your big fear is that the Democrats will take over Congress and then tie up the GWOT in knots of Church-Committee style "oversight," then this scandal won't speak to you.
-- This issue is also dangerous for Democrats, in two ways. First, it gives them a jolt of completely unearned confidence. The 2006 campaign is failing, and they need to do a lot more than dance around this scandal to reverse the slide. Secondly, as many have pointed out, there are lots of examples of Democratic leadership also condoning outrageous behavior. Monica Lewinsky, though legally an adult, was powerless compared with the man who took her as his concubine, and then when he belatedly became afraid of getting caught, showed her the way of the world by orchestrating a cover up in the classic way -- leaning on a rich friend to find her a new job in another city, and uh, please don't call me anymore. There is surely a treasure trove of quotes defining this behavior as "private," and therefore completely beyond the reach of anyone's judgment but Hillary's and God's.
After this scandal, nobody in Washington looks good. But wait. They didn't look good before it either.
OK, Ann. Sorry to have questioned that. I know better, if you were that aloof you wouldn't have this blog (which I see a number of people on who identify themselves as UW students).
Eli,
Democrats always telling me they're taking the high road, but it sure looks like the same road w/ a lot of smokin' going on.
And was the Clinton thing just about lying re: consentual sex w/ an adult? Susan Webber Wright (Clinton appointee) would likely disagree.
john stodder in exile:
I don't see where it is failing. People want a change and Democrats are ready to offer it. And if the charge being made in districts in 'red' states is that a vote for the Democrat is a vote to make 'San Francisco liberal Nancy Pelosi speaker,' Democrats now have the same argument they can make in competitive 'blue' districts (such as Connecticut, where traditional Democrats who may be voting for popular Republican Jodi Rell for governor and independent Joe Lieberman for the Senate but don't want to be perceived as supporting George Bush by voting this way all the way across the top of the ticket are already threatening the states' three GOP Congresspersons. Now Democrats can add to that the claim that a vote for Rob Simmons, Chris Shays or Nancy Johnson is 'a vote for Denny Hastert for speaker.' This cuts both ways.
And here is how it really hurts the Republicans. We now have 36 days left before the election. Before this broke, we had forty. Republicans have to seize the news agenda and make up some serious ground in a hurry if they don't want to lose a bunch of seats (with losing control a possibility) and the news being dominated by a scandal involving a Congressman has just cost them 10% of the time they had to do it.
After this scandal, nobody in Washington looks good. But wait. They didn't look good before it either.
(laughing). You got that right. Republicans claim they are for fighting the GWOT -- but behavior in this case suggests they're more interested in fighting to keep their jobs. Democrats do the exact same thing.
joe baby:
The law defines an adult as 18. That may or may not be the best age-- I've known 14 year olds who were mature enough to know exactly what they were doing and I've known 30 year olds who were completely naive about anything relating to sex.
However, the fact of the matter is that Monica Lewinsky was 22. The last time I checked,
22 > 18.
Hence she was an adult.
She also was consenting. There is no allegation that whatever happened happened by force. Do I admire what the President did, or think it was appropriate? No, I don't. But it was in no way, shape or form a 'high crime or misdemeanor.' And, if you will read my post a few up from here, you will see where I wrote that Foley chose to resign, he could have fought it and probably been censured. History shows that Congressmen can in fact survive censure over this sort of thing if they have a good enough record of constituent service (Studds in particular was re-elected several times after he was censured because the fishing industry in his district knew that he delivered for them in Washington.)
Doyle, check this out:
Interesting read if nothing else..
Revenge of the Interns?.
I'm reminded with this of the flap with Governor Arnold a little while back in which he was accused of doing some rather unseemly things to and with various women.
He is currently enjoying a double digit lead and will win re-election.
Why didn't it tear him down? Because once it came to light he confronted it, apologized, said he was wrong and moved on.
The scandals like this which keep traction are those that are continually denied. Had Clinton said right off there was infidelity he wouldn't have been impeached.
It is the denial that causes the problems. The Democrats seem to have a harder time understanding this and tend to stand by those folks under suspicion. Republicans, once everything is in the open, cut their losses.
What will matter for the next month isn't what Foley or Hastert did or didn't do. It will be about what they do now. Foley resigned. The FBI is called in. There will be a criminal investigation. No one will try to defend Foley and everyone will show the appropriate outrage.
Americans are quite forgiving about personal foibles and sins. What they do not forgive is refusing to own up to personal foibles and sins.
That got Nixon and Clinton in trouble. Arnold admitted, moved on, and will continue to lead California.
If in November the Republicans show how the dealt with this thoroughly and honestly I suspect there won't be any backlash. Everyone will be watching what they do in October however.
Eli,
You have it bad, you actually think people are going to buy your narrative. Had Foley not resigned, he would have been expelled. This is the Party of Principle not the cafeteria Constitutionalist Democratic Party.
Thanks George. That is interesting.
Fenris:
Newt called. He wants his ludicrous "gay bashing" defense back.
Eli,
People want a change and Democrats are ready to offer it.
My concern about the 2006 Democratic campaign is that the party has been derelict in defining what that change would be. Given that we are at war, I think that's a fatally stupid omission. Bush and the GOP are known quantities, for better and for worse. The Democrats message hasn't evolved much from what Kerry offered in 2004, which I would summarize as: "I would do the same thing, but differently." To the question, "what would you do," Kerry and this year's crop of Democrats all come back with answers that start like this: "Well, I'll tell you what I wouldn't do..." followed by a litany of Bush missteps.
It didn't work in '04, and despite Bush's drop in the polls, I predict it won't work this year.
I also question the competence of a party that has made such a priority of electing Ned Lamont to replace...a Democrat! To think that helps the Democrats take the Senate is fuzzy math.
But we'll see. The 2006 campaign is a race to the bottom. Whoever gets there first, wins! God help us.
One person that this scandal seems to help is Bush. Woodward's unflattering book is just out, and all the news on that -- for example, Condi's forgetfulness about a key meeting -- is drowned out by SexSexSex. For an administration that labels itself as useful in the GWOT, having such news of ineptitude lost in a general sex din must be good. When the Foley scandal has played out, will the Media go back to Woodward's book? No.
The question becomes: will this minor sex scandal (and let's be real -- that's what it is -- [minor not relating to the young man's age, btw]) suppress turnout in any key areas?
Eli,
People want a change and Democrats are ready to offer it.
My concern about the 2006 Democratic campaign is that the party has been derelict in defining what that change would be. Given that we are at war, I think that's a fatally stupid omission. Bush and the GOP are known quantities, for better and for worse. The Democrats message hasn't evolved much from what Kerry offered in 2004, which I would summarize as: "I would do the same thing, but differently." To the question, "what would you do," Kerry and this year's crop of Democrats all come back with answers that start like this: "Well, I'll tell you what I wouldn't do..." followed by a litany of Bush missteps.
It didn't work in '04, and despite Bush's drop in the polls, I predict it won't work this year.
I also question the competence of a party that has made such a priority of electing Ned Lamont to replace...a Democrat! To think that helps the Democrats take the Senate is fuzzy math.
But we'll see. The 2006 campaign is a race to the bottom. Whoever gets there first, wins! God help us.
Can any of the folks who are so quick to tar Hastert for not investigating Foley tell me precisely what they think such an investigation would look like? All I can picture are the howls of protest and political indignation should the Speaker start demanding access to other Congressmen's computers and personal correspondence.
"Frank, one of two openly gay members of Congress, confirmed Friday that he paid Gobie for sex, hired him with personal funds as an aide and wrote letters on congressional stationery on his behalf to Virginia probation officials, but Frank said he fired Gobie when he learned that clients were visiting the apartment."
Frank paid for sex with an aide (a subordinate).
Kennedy was partying with Mary Jo Kopechne, a pretty, blond Capitol Hill secretary, just about to celebrate her 29th birthday, and one of six women known as the "Boiler Room Girls" who had worked in Bobby Kennedy's presidential campaign. She was a subordinate in his brother's campaign. Kennedy's wife Joan did not attend the Regatta weekend. Kennedy was trying to bed a subordinate.
As for "Lewinsky's subordiante position (and I am not talking about her standing on her knees) had nothing to do with the encounters, nor was the exchange sought by Clinton. So this does not even qualify as sexual harassment." Well, Ms. Althouse has already opined to the contrary on this, several tiumes. Simply put: You are wrong.
Gerry Studds (D-MA) was censured in 1983 for having sexual relations with underage Congressional pages. What "principle" was he standing on, pray tell?
And buck turgidson,
I think the words you might be struggling with are facts, subordinate and principle.
In English, my native tongue, they mean something very specific.
Seven - I agree that a person should be able to live their lives as they see fit. And if this includes wedding someone who doesn't care about extramarital dalliances, and the diseases they might expose her to, well fine. That's a choice between two adults, and I don't care.
My problem with this hypothetical person starts when they legislate against the -- well, I'll call it lifestyle, even though I don't like that terminology -- lifestyle that they're clandestinely following. In effect the Legislator is saying I'm living a secret life, so you have to also, or your life will be much more difficult because of the Legislation I'm backing.
Foley appears to be a pervert. If he is hitting on 16-year-old boys then he should not a member of Congress.
What's "perverted" about hitting on 16-year-old boys?
"Pervert" is a term applied to people with deviant sexual desires. There's nothing deviant about sexual attraction to teenagers -- hell, radio DJs announced a "countdown to legality" for the Olsen Twins and nobody demanded *they* be thrown in prison. It is just that actually acting on that desire is illegal (like hiring a call girl) and inappropriate (like boinking your secretary).
The truly unfortunate thing about this scandal is that if the Republicans DO lose the House -- which I suspect they were going to before the scandal -- it will get blamed on Foley, rather than on the Republicans' alienation of their own voter base through fecklessness on spending and illegal immigration issues. They'll probably come back twice as draconian on sex issues.
Re: "My problem with this hypothetical person starts when they legislate against the ...lifestyle that they're clandestinely following. "
Taking this line of reasoning to its conclusion, then, one could not simultaneously be an ordinary human and a legislator, because we are all fallible, and we would all be required at some point to legislate against behaviors we think are wrong but that we engage in anyway.
It's a mistake to think that failure to live a perfect life is hypocricy, or that perfection is required if one calls others to live lives of integrity and ethics.
You seem to counsel the prescription of immorality, or at least not rejecting it, if one cannot lead a perfectly moral life in all its aspects. But I am sure that ethical defeatism is not what you really intend.
Re: "I’m more inclined to believe that Foley is simply a gay man who acted out his sexuality in a very inappropriate way..."
What was inappropriate in his actions, then, and why do you say so?
I do not think Republicans will lose the House.
I also think it unlikely. But if they do, I would expect the Leadership to resign for their handling of Foley. They let a minor scandal blow up in their face, diverting attention from where it should be, and why? I'm guessing because they either believed the creep, or because they (they = Republican Party) didn't want to sacrifice a "safe" incumbent, and they hoped the truth wouldn't come out. Horrible judgement.
Similary, if the Democrats don't take the House, I expect the Leadership to resign. An unpopular President, and unpopular war, widespread corruption and sex scandals, and they can't capitalize?
I am prepared, however, to be disappointed in the Leadership of both parties.
but I'm sure there are 20 sleazeballs each on both sides of the aisle sitting in Congress who have done worse.
Total agreement. But just 20?
I think the Leadership could easily have torpedoed Foley before the Primary -- just a leak of an email. Anonymous and quick. Look how fast ABC went from the email to the IMs! Then a quick resignation, and time for a safe Republican to be chosen to replace him.
By the way, Ann, I note this comment has made salon.com's war room. I'll say that I think they mischaracterize your comment when they say you're complaining. I visualize you rolling your eyes as you "say" So it seems in the run-up to the election we won't have to talk about Iraq and terrorism and detainees anymore. Let's talk about sex.
Edward -- You are really late to the party regarding homosexual marriage on Ann Althouse's blog. Briefly: any two gay men can enjoy virtually all of the benefits of marriage, and 100 percent of all the benefits of non-marriage.
Depending on your state, and for some definition of benefits. Here in Wisconsin, for example, if the Amendment passes in November that states A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state, who knows?
mjc: Did you hurt yourself stuffing that many lies into that small a space?
Seven Machos said..."Representative Foley: I see a young person I want to hit on.Edward: What he really wants is to live with an old, gay man but he can't because old, gay men can't live together. (Except that they can, of course, but that's neither here nor there.)"
To be fair, the argument is that Foley was an ordinary man with homosexual impulses, and if society had fully manifested its acceptance of homosexuality by allowing gay marriage, he would have developed into a good man and formed a true partnership with an equal. Because society deprived him of full approval, his character malformed and he sought out a twisted form of sex. Of course, to embrace this argument, you have to view all homosexuals as having a tendency toward twisted, deficient minds.
That's intended to be read in context as the sad message Ashley Gallo was left to perceive, not a big generalization of mine. Though I do note that adults might feel compelled to be aloof and cold to the young out of fear that friendliness is suspect.
Latter: Interesting observation. And in some institutions, there is training that if it doesn't encourage coldness, it does seem to be prescribing a certain aloofness.
Former: Will she better or worse for that, I wonder? Strikes me as a hard call, depending on the young person.
"Apparently, you also missed the part about Frank using "his own funds" to hire Gobie, which would mean that he was not his subordinate in government employ."
I can see why you like Clinton. Both of you are intellectually dishonest, twisting defintions until black means white and is means is not. Bullocks. Gobie worked for Franks as an aide. He was subordinate. You are wrong.
Re: "She was his "side-subordinate", since she worked for his brother. As for "trying to bed", you are, at best, speculating."
Speculating? You're not the brightest porch light on the block if you think Teddy was driving her to the beach just to look at the stars. And if the CEO's brother, another CEO, sleeps with his secretary, yeah, she's a subordinate in the power game. You are wrong.
But heck, you cannot even bring yourself to admit Lewinsky was a subordinate. Again, I don't think you understand what the word actually means.
Maybe you're just trying to play dumb; no one can really be this ignorant.
whats interesting to me is that the timing of this guarantees a Democratic seat in Florida, after the Republican was almost assured the seat in re-election. Obviously Foley is a predator and I don't believe either party is FOR sexual predators but the end result is a seat for the Democrats, so how this story pans out in the next few days (and weeks?) will be interesting, I think...
The partisanizing of this issue just cracks me up.
Democrats are shocked, shocked, and Republicans -- Republicans, who if Foley was a Democrat woud be saying this proves gays shouldn't be scoutmasters or something -- are saying, "Aw, c'mon, it's not that bad."
EVERYTHING is seen through a partisan lens. There are two realities, two moralities, one for "us" and one for "them."
Reader, I found Ann's statement very arresting -- and very clear -- that it's terribly sad if an idealistic young person is forced to conclude that adults are only warm and interested if they want to get into your pants. That there's no such thing as a disinterested, nurturing mentor who just likes to see young people thrive.
Edward wrote: "I believe the most likely scenario is that he’s a deeply closeted gay man who simply cracked under the enormous personal, political and perhaps religious pressures that he felt to stay silent about his homosexuality.
Geez. Could we have all the 'mo's present and accounted for (Downtownlad? Edward? Palladin?) stand and raise your hands if you believe that a 52 year old man who volunteered to run for Congress as a Republican, and then who serially sent pervo emails and IMs to 16-year-old boys is a victim?
When was it during the last 30 years when y'all met and decided to repeal the laws of personal responsibility?
"what is pedophilia?" ... "there's nothing wrong with a 52 year old man hitting on a 16 year old subordinate" ... "blame it on DAH HETERO MAN!!!"
Look, if you're gay and you don't like the closet, by all means come out ... choose to do something for a living where your gayness doesn't present huge hurdles for your life.
If you're a child-monger and can't keep your hands off the 16 year olds in the workplace, well tough titties, pal. Get yourself back in the closet. STFU. Keep your pervo -nature to yourself.
And, I agree with Doyle, although about very little. Fair is fair, and if one Republican leader knew about this guy and tolerated it, they're no better than DHIMMIcRATs and they should be on the caboose in the train on which Foley is being run out of Congress.
"Democrats are shocked, shocked, and Republicans -- Republicans, who if Foley was a Democrat woud be saying this proves gays shouldn't be scoutmasters or something -- are saying, "Aw, c'mon, it's not that bad.""
Not really. He resigned the moment this got into the news. The FBI is investigating and likely criminal charges will be filed. If Foley was a Democrat I suspect there would be lawsuits about how this information was released, obfuscation and denial by Foley, supporting remarks by the Leadership for two weeks, then remarks entirely the opposite.
Foley would eventually resign, though take no personal responsibility, claiming persecution and the story would continue on until Christmas. Next Christmas he would be on Oprah selling his new book about the whole issue.
"There was no actual sexual activity . . . " You're saying two people have to be in the same room to have sex? Foley trying verbally to induce the kid to get sexually excited and report it for his own sexual arousal is not "sexual activity"? What kind of activity is it?
Cedarford has it right.
Edward,
Oh wow. Where to begin?
It's now become wreckless and partisan to wonder what Hastert et. al knew and when he knew it...
...but to stretch 'oppressive GOP homophobia' and 'Catholic faith' into a psychoanalysis of Foley that conveniently hits all the gay talking points and sketches a nefarious house leadership that hates gays so much they'd allow one in their midst to prey on boys-- that's somehow sensible.
I hope Tom Hanks acts in the sequel.
Was it also the Vatican's fault that McGreevey was nailing Puerto Rican (female! yicky!) prostitutes?
And how much 'oppression' causes a man to leave his wife in the hospital (difficult pregnancy and all) to go tackle his paid staff?
Come to think of it, maybe it was the oppression of immoral Democrats that forced Newt to divorce his wife while she was in the hospital.
Bout time we all put on our waders.
There are two basic ways one can end up on the wrong end of sexual harassment complaint--by being involved in conduct that directly offends or oppresses another (for sexual or potential sexual gratification) or by maintaining or helping to maintain an offensive environemnt. Maybe Clinton did the latter--we don't know. We do know that the former was not the case with Lewinsky.
Close, but not quite.
What constitutes benefitting or being punished in a sexual harrassment case? First you have to determine what constitutes those things in the particular circumstance.
What's worth more in the White House than access to the President? What was Lewinsky's price for getting that access? Why did she get access, but others (both male and female) didn't?
When the sexual relationship became to noticable and the President needed to be protected, what happened? Lewinsky was sent to the Pentagon and her access to the President was severely limited. She did not request or consent to that transfer.
She was both rewarded and punished for having sex with the President. There's no question she was his subordinate or that the relative power between them was hugely unequal.
But ...
We might suspect that the QpQ was for keeping silent, not for sex.
... thanks for admitting that Clinton's behavior made him vulnerable to blackmail - not that I think that he was blackmailed. As Clinton himself said, he did it 'because he could'. She may have convinced herself she was in love, but he wasn't and the job search was QpQ.
And the sexual harassment case brought by a less promiscuous coworker is usually a loser. No dice!
Wasn't there a California law that said the other co-workers could sue for sexual harassment if a co-worker was rewarded by sex even if they never met the boss??
To think that the leadership didn't know Foley was gay is ridiculous.
It's not ridiculous at all. Republicans don't believe that ANY gay people exist. They think that all gay people are just sick heterosexuals waiting to be cured. After all, it's just a choice right? So maybe they just told Foley to choose women instead. Problem solved.
Geez. Could we have all the 'mo's present and accounted for
You don't get much more bigoted that that.
Truly in Bizarro World now.
The 'straight homophobes' are arguing that being gay does not automatically lead to sexual excess and the gay men and advocates are wondering why the GOP leadership should've suspected Foley was a pederast since they likely knew he was gay.
And I guess I could offer a psychological profile of Foley from my desk here in Phoenix. Maybe rub my paperweight for inspiration or thumb thru my Psyc textbook from community college. I can buy a Magic-8 ball tomorrow if that helps.
I don't know what compels people to run for these offices, let alone to humiliate their wives, disrespect their constituents, and harm those who they prey upon.
I do know that weaving conspiracy theories that are politically suitable for a gay agenda doesn't explain why straight politicians also burn down their reputations with such ease.
Unless that closet is going to get really metaphoric, I can't explain the similarity.
How do I know what led Foley to do it? Heck, if we're so willing to take Jim McGreevey's word, we better take Foley's word. Alcohol and emotional issues. No closet. No papist dogs. Just ripple.
/end rant
Sad event, all around. Especially for his wife and family, and anyone who was harmed by his predatory behavior.
But wrapping a political agenda within a blanket of psychological crapola demeans both fields.
Joe - Since when have gay people argued that the closet is healthy?
Having to lie about your life is bound to lead to some bad personal decisions.
Now if straight people would stop being so bigoted, the millions of gay people that are in the closet could come out - and start leading normal lives - rather than having to rely on anonymous sex.
If straight sex was deemed immoral by society and was against the law (as gay sex was in Florida until 3 years ago)- how many men would be having sex with 17 year-old prostitutes? A bunch I bet.
Not defending either. Just explaining it.
Didn't we just go through this yesterday? The only thing this episode has done is to make both parties look even more repugnant than they did before. Way to go! No issues, no ideas, just a lot of prurient garbage-sniffing and the same tired meaningless moralisms dropping out of different mouths.
"Geez. Could we have all the 'mo's present and accounted for (Downtownlad? Edward? Palladin?) stand and raise your hands if you believe that a 52 year old man who volunteered to run for Congress as a Republican, and then who serially sent pervo emails and IMs to 16-year-old boys is a victim?"
Listen, you semi-literate scumbag, if you can't even spell my name right, don't refer to me, especially in a thread on which I haven't left a comment.
Sorry, Edward, I'm just not buying what you're selling. There is nothing about the burdens of being gay and closeted that inherently leads to acting out one's sexuality inappropriately with young men in secret -- as opposed to, say, acting out one's sexuality with men of an appropriate age in secret. Indeed, if the pressures of a career in public office were the kind of compelling determinant you paint, going after pages would be the least likely result -- unless, of course, you're assuming Foley's putative self-hatred made him seek political suicide.
I, for one, don't need any thought experiments to empathize with gays. Such understanding does not make your effort to cast Foley, and in a bizarre backhanded way, the Republican leadership as well, as victims of political homophobia any more convincing. The central fact here is Foley's abrogation of his reponsibilities as a Congressman, a mentor, and a mature adult. The central issue is whether Hastert et al. deliberately gave Foley a pass for political reasons. The idea that that they might not have wanted to forfeit a Republican seat is plausible. The idea that Foley's orientation made investigation untenable in the Republican party is not.
I have a few questions for those who are "outraged" by this scandal, i.e., the "cover-up":
1. Did Foley do something wrong?
If "No", then what are ya yammering about?
2. Isn't Foley just exercising a "right" that the Supreme Court hasn't recognized yet, and therefore we should be celebrating anyone who helped him exercise that right (big kudos to Hastert)?
raise your hands if you believe that a 52 year old man who [...] serially sent pervo emails and IMs to 16-year-old boys is a victim?
Given that the boys he sent "pervo" IMs to sent "pervo" IMs right back I have a hard time seeing ANY of the people involved as victims. It's certainly Jerry Springer material, but anyone who thinks Foley was warping those kids' minds needs to read those transcripts.
I'm not sure what "pervo" emails he sent, though. Maybe those were worse. The only emails I've seen are the G-rated ones he sent to the teenager in Louisiana.
if we buy the assumption that homophobia is a peculiarly Republican thing, any reasonably safe Democratic district would do
Homophobia is, sadly, not even vaguely limited to the Republican Party. The most homophobic demographic group in the nation, for example, is black people. Hispanics aren't much better. Neither are the working-class people who make up most of the unions.
This is why Clinton signed the DMA, why Kerry claimed to have the same position on gay marriage as Bush, and why the only significant federal-level gains in gay rights have come via judicial fiat -- comfortably distant from anyone who actually has to run for election. Gays make up about 3% of the population. The Democrats aren't going to kiss off the racial minority vote just to win that 3% -- it is enough that Republican social conservatives, who are the *loudest* homophobes even if they aren't the worst ones, keep most gay people from voting against Democrats.
hi
Thanks for sharing beautiful content. I got information from your blog.keep sharing
Abogado Divorcio Leesburg VA
This little step-by-step guide, Thanks for the solution… I was looking for the exact thing ......
sex crimes attorney near me
sex crimes defense attorney
Great insights It's fascinating to see the evolution of styles over the years. For anyone looking to enhance their business practices, ISO Certification In Saudi Arabia visit our website.
Post a Comment