Althouse: Foley.

September 29, 2006

Foley.

Folly.

122 comments:

Anonymous said...: Supposedly Haster knew about these allegations a year ago. If so - that will be the real scandal.; 9/29/06, 7:31 PM
Joseph said...: Its one really good day for the Tim Mahoney people.; 9/29/06, 7:35 PM
Maxine Weiss said...: Foley, folly...

...BUGGERY !!!

I'm the poet around here.

Peace, Maxine; 9/29/06, 7:42 PM
Revenant said...: 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.; 9/29/06, 7:45 PM
Tim said...: 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.; 9/29/06, 7:51 PM
Ruth Anne Adams said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 9/29/06, 7:57 PM
Troy said...: Ruth... Felly...; 9/29/06, 8:07 PM
Doug said...: 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; 9/29/06, 8:10 PM
Maxine Weiss said...: "none of the behavior described so far seems necessarily inappropriate"--- revenant

Hel-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; 9/29/06, 9:44 PM
Maxine Weiss said...: 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; 9/29/06, 9:48 PM
Maxine Weiss said...: "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; 9/29/06, 9:54 PM
Revenant said...: "none of the behavior described so far seems necessarily inappropriate"--- revenant

Hel-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.; 9/29/06, 9:56 PM
Revenant said...: Oh my goodness gracious, I feel a Victorian Grandmother.

Nah, Victorian porn used a whole different set of slang terms. :); 9/29/06, 10:00 PM
Sloanasaurus said...: 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).; 9/29/06, 10:06 PM
Sloanasaurus said...: 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.; 9/29/06, 10:15 PM
Revenant said...: 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". :); 9/29/06, 10:16 PM
Maxine Weiss said...: "I read the article Ann linked too,"---revenant

You 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; 9/29/06, 10:18 PM
garage mahal said...: And....I've heard that Boehner was the one told of the boner(s).; 9/29/06, 10:26 PM
Maxine Weiss said...: 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.pdf

Peace, and a cold shower!
Maxine; 9/29/06, 10:27 PM
Anonymous said...: 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.; 9/29/06, 10:40 PM
Beth said...: 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.; 9/29/06, 10:46 PM
Beth said...: Aha! Now we know: Revenant is John Derbyshire.; 9/29/06, 10:47 PM
Maxine Weiss said...: 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; 9/29/06, 10:49 PM
Maxine Weiss said...: Maf54: What ya wearing?

Teen: tshirt and shorts

Maf54: Love to slip them off of you.; 9/29/06, 10:51 PM
Anonymous said...: 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.; 9/29/06, 10:56 PM
Simon said...: 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.); 9/29/06, 11:03 PM
Peter Hoh said...: Simon, why do you hate America so much?; 9/29/06, 11:19 PM
Anonymous said...: 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.; 9/29/06, 11:26 PM
Palladian said...: 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.; 9/30/06, 12:09 AM
X said...: 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.; 9/30/06, 12:14 AM
X said...: Maf54 (7:48:00 PM): did you spank it this weekend yourself
Xxxxxxxxx (7:48:04 PM): no
Xxxxxxxxx (7:48:16 PM):
been too tired and too busy
Maf54 (7:48:33 PM): wow...
Maf54 (7:48:34 PM): i am never to busy haha

Man oh man is that the kind of thing that you want to hear from your hard-working congresscritter.; 9/30/06, 12:19 AM
dave said...: 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...; 9/30/06, 12:24 AM
Brian Doyle said...: 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!; 9/30/06, 12:28 AM
Anonymous said...: Foley

Folly

Funny, lol.; 9/30/06, 12:35 AM
Palladian said...: Yes, keep it up dave! It makes me so hot when angry liberals make moralistic pronouncements!; 9/30/06, 12:40 AM
Revenant said...: 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".; 9/30/06, 12:47 AM
Revenant said...: Now we know: Revenant is John Derbyshire

I don't think John Derbyshire would be criticizing someone for saying "let's hang the gay guy". :); 9/30/06, 12:48 AM
dave said...: 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!; 9/30/06, 12:55 AM
dave said...: 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!!!; 9/30/06, 12:56 AM
dave said...: 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."; 9/30/06, 1:02 AM
Brian Doyle said...: 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.; 9/30/06, 1:14 AM
Sloanasaurus said...: 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

Apparently 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.; 9/30/06, 1:20 AM
Brian Doyle said...: 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.; 9/30/06, 1:27 AM
Palladian said...: "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.; 9/30/06, 1:50 AM
Mortimer Brezny said...: 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.; 9/30/06, 1:57 AM
Beau said...: 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!; 9/30/06, 2:22 AM
Revenant said...: 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. :); 9/30/06, 3:21 AM
Eli Blake said...: 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.; 9/30/06, 3:33 AM
Eli Blake said...: Foley.

Folly.

Fall-ee.; 9/30/06, 3:35 AM
Revenant said...: 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.; 9/30/06, 3:40 AM
J said...: 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?; 9/30/06, 8:43 AM
Joseph said...: 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_16
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.; 9/30/06, 9:00 AM
Simon said...: 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?; 9/30/06, 9:18 AM
garage mahal said...: I feel a piping red-hot terror alert coming up.; 9/30/06, 10:09 AM
MadisonMan said...: But he really should be hung.

fenrisulven, I'm stunned that you threw out this great straight (cough) line and no one used it.; 9/30/06, 10:46 AM
Palladian said...: 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?; 9/30/06, 11:06 AM
Anonymous 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.

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.; 9/30/06, 11:22 AM
Joseph said...: 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?; 9/30/06, 11:23 AM
Beth said...: 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?; 9/30/06, 11:23 AM
Anonymous said...: 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; 9/30/06, 11:52 AM
Anonymous said...: 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; 9/30/06, 11:59 AM
Beth said...: 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.; 9/30/06, 12:12 PM
Palladian said...: "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!; 9/30/06, 12:28 PM
Freeman Hunt said...: Maf54 (7:48:00 PM): did you spank it this weekend yourself
Xxxxxxxxx (7:48:04 PM): no
Xxxxxxxxx (7:48:16 PM):
been too tired and too busy
Maf54 (7:48:33 PM): wow...
Maf54 (7:48:34 PM): i am never to busy haha

Diary entry: Yay! I won! Today will be my first day in Congress! Shopping list:
-paperclips
-Bic pens
-blacklight
-bleach; 9/30/06, 12:38 PM
Maxine Weiss said...: "An attraction to youth is basic to all human sexuality"
---townleybomb

Remember 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 Marquez

One of the greatest opening lines in all of literature.

Very evocative.

Illegal, but evocative nonetheless.

Peace, Maxine; 9/30/06, 12:44 PM
Palladian said...: "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."; 9/30/06, 12:54 PM
garage mahal said...: Did you know that men are statistically more likely to have penises than any other gender?

Ann Coulter the exception of course...; 9/30/06, 1:49 PM
J said...: This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.; 9/30/06, 2:52 PM
J said...: "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.; 9/30/06, 2:53 PM
tjl said...: 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.; 9/30/06, 4:20 PM
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.

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; 9/30/06, 6:51 PM
Brian Doyle said...: This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.; 9/30/06, 9:22 PM
Brian Doyle said...: 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.; 9/30/06, 9:25 PM
Simon said...: 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?; 9/30/06, 9:34 PM
MadisonMan said...: 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?; 9/30/06, 9:43 PM
Simon said...: 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."; 9/30/06, 9:44 PM
Simon said...: "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 of

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. 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.; 9/30/06, 9:49 PM
Brian Doyle said...: Simon:

Hastert = Cardinal Law

This 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.; 9/30/06, 9:54 PM
Brian Doyle said...: 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.; 9/30/06, 10:01 PM
MadisonMan said...: 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.; 9/30/06, 10:08 PM
Brian Doyle said...: 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.; 9/30/06, 10:14 PM
Palladian said...: "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"); 9/30/06, 10:15 PM
Simon said...: 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.; 9/30/06, 10:16 PM
Simon said...: 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.; 9/30/06, 10:19 PM
Brian Doyle said...: 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.; 9/30/06, 10:19 PM
Palladian said...: "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.; 9/30/06, 10:21 PM
Palladian said...: "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.; 9/30/06, 10:22 PM
Brian Doyle said...: 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.; 9/30/06, 10:28 PM
Simon said...: "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!; 9/30/06, 10:30 PM
Brian Doyle said...: Simon -

Let's try this again:

Recipient of emails no consenting adult.

Recipient 16 year old page who no likey creepy Congressman.; 9/30/06, 10:33 PM
Simon said...: Doyle,
Are you now denying that 16 is the age of consent in the District of Columbia?; 9/30/06, 10:41 PM
Brian Doyle said...: 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...; 9/30/06, 10:47 PM
Simon said...: 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.; 9/30/06, 10:55 PM
Simon said...: 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.; 9/30/06, 10:57 PM
Brian Doyle said...: 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.; 9/30/06, 11:13 PM
Brian Doyle said...: 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!; 9/30/06, 11:16 PM
Brian Doyle said...: 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?; 9/30/06, 11:19 PM
jexter said...: 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?; 9/30/06, 11:24 PM
Revenant said...: 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. :); 9/30/06, 11:27 PM
Simon said...: 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.; 9/30/06, 11:34 PM
Brian Doyle said...: 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.; 9/30/06, 11:37 PM
Palladian said...: Cedarford, you are Clayton Cramer, aren't you?; 9/30/06, 11:58 PM
Anonymous said...: 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

sympathetic

pathetic...

::I`ll stop now:::; 10/1/06, 1:19 AM
Revenant said...: 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".; 10/1/06, 2:12 AM
tjl said...: 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."; 10/1/06, 8:22 AM
Ann Althouse said...: 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?; 10/1/06, 8:53 AM
Brian Doyle said...: 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.; 10/1/06, 9:38 AM
Brian Doyle said...: 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!; 10/1/06, 10:25 AM
Ann Althouse said...: "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.; 10/1/06, 10:32 AM
Ann Althouse said...: I can't get over the enthusiasm for keeping me out of the party. Great move, losers.; 10/1/06, 10:34 AM
Brian Doyle said...: 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.; 10/1/06, 11:08 AM
Ann Althouse said...: 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.; 10/1/06, 12:03 PM
Brian Doyle said...: 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.; 10/1/06, 1:02 PM
Simon said...: 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.; 10/1/06, 1:40 PM
Ann Althouse said...: 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?; 10/1/06, 2:01 PM
Simon said...: 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.; 10/1/06, 2:46 PM
Simon said...: 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.; 10/1/06, 9:12 PM
Brian Doyle said...: What Republican am I supposed to be supporting here and why?

What year is it? When's Jello?; 10/1/06, 11:03 PM
Revenant said...: 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.; 10/2/06, 3:27 AM
MadisonMan said...: 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.; 10/2/06, 7:46 AM
Simon said...: 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.; 10/2/06, 10:07 AM
Revenant said...: 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. :); 10/2/06, 4:55 PM