Skip

Following up on the Foley sex/page/alcohol/priest/republican scandal.
October 29, 2006 9:10 AM   Subscribe

Voters will see Foley's name on signs to help them make the 'right' choice, if they don't know about his page proclivities. But John Boehner would have 'canned him' had he known about what Foley was doing. In the meantime, Foley has been offered sexual reorientation, even while he's in exclusive alcohol treatment in Arizona, with an 'average stay of 30 days'. Just long enough, don't you think? He'll be relaxing by the pool with a Shirley Temple, but the blogger who exposed him will be out looking for a new job.
posted by Kickstart70 (58 comments total) 1 user marked this as a favorite

 
Aside from this, and a more general election issue: I've been wandering Congress candidates websites and it appears that the Republicans often don't even put the word 'Republican' (and certainly no mention of GWB) on their front page. Is there an undercurrent of shame?
posted by Kickstart70 at 9:12 AM on October 29, 2006


I've noticed a lot of yard signs even around here (Dallas) that fail to state the candiate's political party.
(hint: not the Democrats)
posted by ernie at 9:17 AM on October 29, 2006


..candidate's..
posted by ernie at 9:18 AM on October 29, 2006


In related news...

"On [today's] The Chris Matthews Show, NBC Congressional Correspondent Chip Reed dropped a bomb during Matthew's 'Tell Me Something I Don't Know' segment. 'I'm going to be a little cryptic here,' Reed began, then added, 'the Mark Foley scandal investigation is going to widen a little bit.'" [watch it].
posted by ericb at 9:19 AM on October 29, 2006


did you know that no matter what happens to foley he still collects his entire congressional benefit package
posted by robbyrobs at 9:35 AM on October 29, 2006


Is there an undercurrent of shame?

I've noticed that too, Kickstart. But also among Democrats. "Swing" voters don't like either party, they just seem to dislike the Republicans a little more.
posted by Slarty Bartfast at 9:39 AM on October 29, 2006


In a sane world, I'd virtually never vote for most people in the Democratic party. Russ Feingold is one notable exception... I LIKE him. Obama may be good too, although I don't yet know his views on most things.

Basically, the Democrats and the Republicans are two heads on the same snake, and we're trying to choose the one that will inject the least venom into the body politic.
posted by Malor at 9:49 AM on October 29, 2006 [1 favorite]


Republicans often don't even put the word 'Republican' (and certainly no mention of GWB) on their front page.

I was watching Meet the Press this morning - which was a debate between the Maryland senator candidates Michael Steele (R) and Ben ardin (D) - and Tim Russert pulled out a bumper sticker for the Steele campaign. Only trouble was, it was blue, and read 'Steele Democrat.' More here. More blue Republican lawn signs here.
posted by carter at 9:54 AM on October 29, 2006


Malor: to twist your metaphor (MetaPhor?), I think the logical case must be made that it's probably better to replace the poisonous viper that's currently injecting venom with a new snake that is probably poisonous, but appears to be less fatally so.
posted by Kickstart70 at 9:57 AM on October 29, 2006


Only trouble was, it was blue, and read 'Steele Democrat.' More here. More blue Republican lawn signs here.

Well, people will see the right party in the voting booth.
posted by delmoi at 9:59 AM on October 29, 2006


I can't believe the HRC did that. I will have to seriously rethink donating to them this year.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:03 AM on October 29, 2006


The Steele Democrat signs should be read as if they said "Reagan Democrat," Steele supporters explained.

I was young, but I don't remember any Reagan Democrat signs.

I wonder if he could get busted for fraud. Doubtful.
posted by mrgrimm at 10:09 AM on October 29, 2006


I'm not sure they really had a choice, Blazecock. If they didn't fire him, it would be tacit admission that they endorsed the use of their computers to do that. As far as I know, email is protected under copyright, and they could end up in real trouble.

Now, had the employee done it on his own time, with his own equipment, and THEN gotten fired, I'd have been pretty upset.

I rather doubt the HRC cares too much what my opinion is either way, though, since I don't give them money. :)

mrgrimm: hopefully they have enough money to get some ads on TV exposing the fraud. I knew the Republicans were slime, but they continue to shock me with the sheer depths of their criminal behavior.
posted by Malor at 10:12 AM on October 29, 2006


I wonder if he could get busted for fraud. Doubtful.

Ask the FEC.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:13 AM on October 29, 2006


I can't believe the HRC did that.

I can't figure out what happened.

'"He inappropriately used Human Rights Campaign resources. He was fired," organization Vice President David Smith said of the employee. "The Human Rights Campaign believes in being very aboveboard in our political activity."'

It seems like if he had done it in his off time, it would have been fine? I don't know what legal/ethical rules the HRC would have broken by posting the info, but I guess he got fired for blogging on work time? Or is there something else?

nonetheless, a stopsexpredators vs. stopoctobersurprises feud depresses me.
posted by mrgrimm at 10:14 AM on October 29, 2006


I'm not sure they really had a choice, Blazecock. If they didn't fire him, it would be tacit admission that they endorsed the use of their computers to do that.

That's one thing, but to claim that outing Foley is underhanded or somehow not "aboveboard" is bullshit. These hypocritical assholes go out of their way to make our lives miserable — and that needs to be said if the media won't. With the big, flashy HRC celebrity dinners I see advertised in their magazine, I have to wonder what exactly my donation dollars actually do. Ugh.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:22 AM on October 29, 2006


did you know that no matter what happens to foley he still collects his entire congressional benefit package

it's sheer greed, then ... he already had one package, what did he need with that page's?
posted by pyramid termite at 10:27 AM on October 29, 2006


Foley's attorneys issued a two-sentence statement Wednesday disclosing that Foley, who resigned from Congress on Sept. 29, is being treated for alcoholism at Sierra Tucson, a psychiatric hospital that costs $1,175 and up per day.

I know that place. My mom was there for a month eighteen years ago for depression and suicide.

It was then we worked out that members of my family susceptible to severe depression usually have it manifest right around 34.

I turned 34 this year. So far, it's OK. But I do worry about the black dog.
posted by dw at 10:36 AM on October 29, 2006 [1 favorite]


the Democrats and the Republicans are two heads on the same snake

Why do you bother voting? BTW this is simply not true, there are real differences between the parties. Sounds like a defensive argument I've been hearing a lot from grumbling Republicans.
posted by stbalbach at 10:37 AM on October 29, 2006


That's one thing, but to claim that outing Foley is underhanded or somehow not "aboveboard" is bullshit.

The problem is that he did it anonymously. If HRC doesn't want to be associated with dirty tricks or whatever they had every right to can him.
posted by delmoi at 10:39 AM on October 29, 2006


It seems like if he had done it in his off time, it would have been fine? I don't know what legal/ethical rules the HRC would have broken by posting the info, but I guess he got fired for blogging on work time? Or is there something else?

I figure the real issue is that HRC is a non-profit, and what he did borders on political advocacy, which is forbidden under 501(c)(3).

Blogging on company time is a convenient excuse to save the charity from the IRS coming knocking. Considering how they've been coming down on churches the last few years, I wouldn't put it past them to open an investigation, especially if, you know, Denny Hastert made a phone call or two.
posted by dw at 10:43 AM on October 29, 2006


He'll be relaxing by the pool with a Shirley Temple, but the blogger who exposed him will be out looking for a new job.

Kinda like the guy on the maintenance staff of the Watergate who noticed that the door to the DNC office appeared to have been tampered with.
posted by clevershark at 10:49 AM on October 29, 2006


stbalbach: like I said, lesser of two evils. They're still both evil. I vote to try to limit the damage.

I don't think I've seen a genuinely new idea out of Washington in the last decade.

That said, the Republicans aren't just evil, they're an actively malignant cancer. I believe that if the Democrats do not decisively take back the government on the 7th, America as the grand social experiment is over. But even if the Demos win, it could still be over; the country is in incredibly dire financial condition, and I do not think it will survive in its present form for more than another twenty years.

At most. It could collapse much sooner.

As I said when the Abu Ghraib scandal hit..."We could lose the war right here. We can't win from this, but if it's badly handled, we lose." And, sure enough, we chose to lose, and now we're just filling body bags before we flee the country.

We can't save America on the 7th, but we can opt not to outright destroy it.
posted by Malor at 11:09 AM on October 29, 2006


From the forbes article: [stopoctobersurprises blogger] identifies himself on his own blog as a fiscal conservative but social liberal who votes Republican most of the time

*boggle*
posted by ryanrs at 11:11 AM on October 29, 2006


Obama may be good too, although I don't yet know his views on most things.

I think you have nailed his strategy.
posted by srboisvert at 11:22 AM on October 29, 2006


The use of quotation marks around "right" in this FPP is misleading. It seems like you're quoting something, but the word doesn't even occur in the article you linked to. /nitpick
posted by I Am Not a Lobster at 11:28 AM on October 29, 2006


The use of quotation marks around "right" in this FPP is misleading.

Well, there's this thing called "context" (not a quote!) that has to be taken into account.
posted by clevershark at 11:36 AM on October 29, 2006


did you know that no matter what happens to foley he still collects his entire congressional benefit package

Um. Why wouldn't he? He's contributed long enough to vest, so he gets a pension benefit. That's how they work.

Pensions don't normally, AFAIK, have requirements like "You will only actually receive your pension if you are not an asshole," or "You will not receive a pension if you resign under a dark cloud" or "You will not receive a pension if you might have committed a crime but have not actually been convicted or even accused of one."
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 11:44 AM on October 29, 2006


Hitting the major points:
* Politics-wise it's a disappointment, but I have no objection to voters being informed that their vote will be applied to someone else.
* Boehner would have "canned" Foley? Seems to conflict with the "But there was no sex!" talking point.
* I don't ever remember party ID being common on yard signs, but you'd expect it on a website.
* "Steele Democrat" is not exactly deceptive (normally you see e.g. "Democrats for Steele") but is probably intended to sow confusion, and confusion at the very least suppresses turnout. The GOP hates high turnout.
* So what if Foley collects his benefits? No crime, you know ... this was never about "crime" and shouldn't be. It is about Republican governance of expediency without transparency. Problem between a Congressman and a page? Heaven forfend we discuss this at the Page Board, of all places. Let's get the Republican Congressional Campaign chief into this meeting!

Kinda like the guy on the maintenance staff of the Watergate who noticed that the door to the DNC office appeared to have been tampered with.

Security guard Frank Wills, who quit his job when he didn't get a raise for the discovery. (Note that the Watergate is a private real-estate holding.)

If HRC doesn't want to be associated with dirty tricks or whatever they had every right to can him.

I think they had the right and the responsibility to can him. Not only to protect their legal status, but their reputation.

Blogging on company time is a convenient excuse to save the charity from the IRS coming knocking.

It would be bad enough to face a subpoena from the House Ethics Committee.
posted by dhartung at 12:04 PM on October 29, 2006


Though U.S. Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham [who is now in federal prison serving 8 years] must forfeit more than $1.8 million in ill-gotten gains, experts say he will get to hold onto his Congressional pension earned during eight terms in office.

Mike Orenstein, a spokesman for the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, said Tuesday that federal law allows pension benefits to be stripped only if a federal employee, or congressional legislator, commits a "crime against the United States," such as treason.
-- North County Times
posted by dhartung at 12:07 PM on October 29, 2006


He'll be relaxing by the pool with a Shirley Temple

Wouldn't he prefer a Macaulay Culkin?
posted by Grangousier at 12:22 PM on October 29, 2006 [2 favorites]


File under WTF for me.... From the NY Times today.

U.S. Investigates Voting Machines’ Venezuela Ties

The federal government is investigating the takeover last year of a leading American manufacturer of electronic voting systems by a small software company that has been linked to the leftist Venezuelan government of President Hugo Chávez.

The inquiry is focusing on the Venezuelan owners of the software company, the Smartmatic Corporation, and is trying to determine whether the government in Caracas has any control or influence over the firm’s operations, government officials and others familiar with the investigation said.


Link to story here. I'm hoping that this will bypass the registration, if it does not, apologies (I think you can use Metafilter/Metafilter, but I'm not positive).
posted by jokeefe at 1:25 PM on October 29, 2006


It seems like if he had done it in his off time, it would have been fine?

Yes, probably. The stopsexpredators blogger was using a work computer from a lobbying group to post anonymous stories about politicians that lobbying group almost certainly deals with regualarly. I'm no great fan of HRC in general, but blaming them for firing a guy doing something that stupid is ridiculous.
posted by mediareport at 2:19 PM on October 29, 2006


I don't know how Boehner can claim that he "would have canned Foley if he had known", especially after claiming that he brought the matter to Hastert's staff's attention.

He seriously needs to get his own story straight.
posted by clevershark at 2:37 PM on October 29, 2006


The problem with the US isn't the parties, it's the people. We basically have the politicians we deserve. I voted Green & Libertarian for Senate and Governor, respectively, this year. If Feinstein loses by 1 vote, you can blame me.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 2:52 PM on October 29, 2006


Back to the party-identification issue, I drove through Maryland and Virginia today, and I saw a whole lot of campaign signs, but I don't think I saw a single one, Republican or Democratic, that identified the candidate's party. Almost all of the signs, including George Allen's, were blue. I wish that a month ago I had thought to print up stickers saying "Democratic Candidate" and "Republican Candidate" for people to affix to signs as they pass.
posted by Faint of Butt at 4:50 PM on October 29, 2006


You could always go out with a permanent marker. It would be hilarious if they tried to charge you with vandalism of those signs by marking the candidate's affiliation.

FWIW, I'm not sure why this hasn't been in the media. It seems like such a scummy thing to do.
posted by Kickstart70 at 4:55 PM on October 29, 2006


I still think the Foley case was a partisan witch hunt, and a homophobic one at that: if there's nothing wrong with being Gay why fag-bait Foley? And don't give me that "He was victimizing CHILDREN!" bullshit again, I still maintain a 16 year old dude is NOT a child (indeed 16 is "legal age" in most states), nor is consensual reciprocal "hawt IM" with someone of legal age my idea of victimization. As for "power issues," what power did Congressperson Foley have over 16 year old EX-pages that he didn't have over any of the rest of us?

I know, I know, Foley was a hypocrite. And yes, I agree, for the Republicans (and Right-Democrats) to let him slide on this is kinda doubly-standardized considering Lewinski (which also involved harmless goofiness between consenting folks above legal age). See, guess what: Republican hypocrisy does not excuse Democratic hypocrisy. It's pot-kettle-black time in America again. "Corrupt politician" is redundant.

And by the way, over in Iraq...
posted by davy at 5:34 PM on October 29, 2006


"On [today's] The Chris Matthews Show, NBC Congressional Correspondent Chip Reed dropped a bomb during Matthew's 'Tell Me Something I Don't Know' segment. 'I'm going to be a little cryptic here,' Reed began, then added, 'the Mark Foley scandal investigation is going to widen a little bit.'"

That has to be the Crist thing in FL, and that Crist, Jeb Bush, and Crist's Cybercrime office knew last year about Foley and pages.
posted by amberglow at 6:01 PM on October 29, 2006


(Crist is the current Att'y General in Fl, and running for Gov there)
posted by amberglow at 6:03 PM on October 29, 2006


if there's nothing wrong with being Gay why fag-bait Foley?

davy, even if you really believe there's nothing odd about a middle-aged man hooking up with a teenager, surely you must concede that it's unacceptable for a Congressman to proposition a page, since the page is the Congressman's subordinate.
posted by SPrintF at 6:13 PM on October 29, 2006 [1 favorite]


And davy...I was propositionedstalked by a 55 year old school bus driver when I was 18. I scared the frigging hell out of me, enough so that I left town rather than deal with it, considering my 'support group' of people who were supposed to me there to help me was useless. It took me a long time to deal with that, and if I was two years younger it would have been a lot worse.

Maybe you could have handled being hit on my a middle aged guy at age 16. A lot of kids can't.
posted by Kickstart70 at 6:33 PM on October 29, 2006


Look, I live in Florida now, and politics here is entirely local. The state's policy making machinery is a joke to the rest of the world, but this is a state where handshakes and church membership mean much more than real qualifications or integrity, and that goes to all elected levels of public affairs.

The ballot for people of that district will still read Mark Foley as the incumbent come election day, and there's a fair chance, probably better than even money in that heavily Republican district, that his name will win for the Republicans again. The real irony is that the actual Republican nominee, Joe Negron, may never know if he could have won this race this year, absent the Foley imbroglio. Because no matter what happens, it's another case of Florida politics making a simple, common sense thing like changing a name on a ballot, more than a month before the election, impossible.

The election systems here are every bit as much of a joke as they were in 2000 and again in 2004. That's the way the folks here like it, and that's the way its going to stay.
posted by paulsc at 9:03 PM on October 29, 2006


I still think the Foley case was a partisan witch hunt, and a homophobic one at that: if there's nothing wrong with being Gay why fag-bait Foley?

Partisan? Tell that to the Republican page who started the whole thing. Homophobice? Tell that to John Aravosis and Andrew Sullivan, both gay men who thought that his behavior was beyond the pale.

The keen joy many felt in seeing him come down, like me, was absolutely due to his hypocrisy, of course. It's always extra fun to see someone hoist by their own particular petard (in this case, sexualized internet communications with minors). But from a partisan standpoint it was almost better to have him remain in office -- it was the GOP who wanted to hustle him off the stage as quickly as they could drop the curtain.

The real scandal is, fortunately, much closer to being about the Republican management of the Foley problem from the very meager and perhaps unobjectionable beginning. It should be a matter of course, in a well-run democracy, that an issue like a Congressman e-mailing a page should come to the Page Board and be discussed openly. Should the Congressman be scolded? Privately or publicly? Should the page managers be more protective? Should other pages be questioned? Should Congressman and pages alike be given a refresher course in sexual harassment? None of that happened. The GOP handled the entire thing like a radioactive biohazard, made sure that as few people knew as they possibly could, and then made the determination that this matter they had been desperate to conceal was not a problem enough to keep the guy from running again. That's just stupidity on a colossal scale, and they've earned every bit of the loss of confidence they now enjoy.
posted by dhartung at 10:39 PM on October 29, 2006


Is there such a word as Hypohomocritical?
posted by tkchrist at 11:19 PM on October 29, 2006


*davy* is calling us homophobic for not allowing closeted Republican twink-lovers to stay in the closet while voting against gay marriage? *davy* is doing that?

Good lord, his head's in a muddle over this one, isn't it?
posted by mediareport at 7:40 AM on October 30, 2006


That said, the Republicans aren't just evil, they're an actively malignant cancer.
Malor
-----------------------------------
Nailed it right on the head. Well said. These people need to be put out in all aspects otherwise everything going back to Magna Carta in England is dead, dead, dead and it's only a matter of time before we're worshiping lords and ladies and all that comes with it. Oh wait, I forgot we're already there. . . 'the customer is always right', persons who purchase higher levels of service deserve to be treated better than those that don't, etc. etc.
posted by mk1gti at 2:43 PM on October 30, 2006


right now Hardball is hosting a FL Governor debate--Crist made sure to mention his divorce, and that "marriage is between a man and a woman" in answering a Civil union vs. marriage question.
posted by amberglow at 4:08 PM on October 30, 2006


"*davy* is calling us homophobic for not allowing closeted Republican twink-lovers to stay in the closet while voting against gay marriage? *davy* is doing that?"

NO, that is NOT what I'm doing. In the first place I don't think the closet should have to exist: I think a gay Republican politician should be able as to be "out" as a Trotskyist waiter. Furthermore I don't know from which part of your rectum you pulled *that* comment; maybe the Alternate Personality that handles Reading Comprehension is "funnin'" with you.

As for Gay marriage, I'M against it: I'm against MARRIAGE. For Heteros, Bisexuals, Trannies and Questioners too. What this has to do with what I WAS talking about I don't know, either.

As for emailing pages, I thought the issue was EX-pages. Of legal age. Maybe I got behind on some "very important followup reports" because the whole tempest in a pisspot revolts me to chuckles and I went back to concentrating on other issues like, oh, the War on Iraq.

And Kickstart70, if one's "bad experiences" with any particular individual are not valid for holding grudges against whole large (pseudo-) categories of people, such as "I don't like blacks because I got mugged once in 1978," I don't see how any one young adult's chickenshittery concerning being "stalked" by a middle-aged bus driver can be countenanced either. So what? And, so, of course I'm not surprised that a Republican EX-page "started the whole thing" or that he got freaked out by it; so what? Think of all the 16 year old women (inclluding 16 year old Lesbians) who get emails from middle-aged "suitors" (of any sex): why should we jump to judgment because of the respective sexes and sexualities involved in any one case?

And no dhartung, I'm not surprised either that a bunch of "radik3wl Queers" got all upset, though given that their whole raison d'etre is "We're just like you really!" I don't know what they'd have to be upset about. Surely wanting to be seen as "a normal person who happens to be homo" means they should expect to be seen as having the same flaws as any other random person; of course if Desi Het might leer at some MOTAS who's not old enough to buy me a bourbon then Ozzie Fag might do the same thing. I.e., if "We're just like YOU!" is your slogan, then "That makes Us look just as bad as Them!" is a goofy complaint.

And hey, HELLO! Hypocritical Politician is redundant! Is that big news to any but the most sheltered 8 year old? The real scandal here is that a goon like Foley, and goons like its fellow politicians of either Major Party, should have been allowed to run the U.S. government in the first place; the sexes and sexualities of such goons is strictly speaking irrelevant except that everybody's got to be sexed and sexualized somehow. And the American voters must take a large part of the blame for the U.S. government: if y'all had listened to such as me we wouldn't have this problem either.

But then I don't suppose, with such a partisan choice between Good and Evil Democrat and Republican, anybody's going to bother trying to process this comment accurately either: if *mediareport* can so stupidly and/or mendaciously misunderstand and/or misrepresent a simple point, *mediareport*, I don't know what good it can do. (IK,IK,IHBT.)
posted by davy at 8:53 AM on October 31, 2006


davy, you're being a dick and completely missing the point.

You claimed that no 16 year old should be perturbed by being hit on by a middle-aged guy. I refuted that. You turned to name-calling and brought out the racism strawman and then the hetero strawman. Then you bring out the "all politians are evil, so don't jump on this one" strawman. You still are bypassing the point.

- Foley was in a powerful position
- The page was in a subordinate, non-powerful position
- Foley's position, regardless of his intent to use it or not to get his way, made this propositioning a page an inappropriate action

Further, there is still a big question mark on legality, and whether Foley violated his own internet-propositioning and other laws. The page in San Diego was either 16 or 17 at the time of spending time with Foley, and the age of consent in California is 18 (not 16, as it is in Florida). Foley's conduct there needs to be investigated.

In any case, you are assuming all of us here are wishing we could form a lynch mob and string Foley up (pick a reason: because he's a pedophile, because he's a jerk, because he's a Republican), and that's quite simply not the case. Most of us just want a full investigation to see if he broke laws without ridiculous and uncited claims that he did or did not.

So...back the fuck up, calm the fuck down, and quit making claims that you can't back up, please. It's no better for this, or any, discussion than the things you are railing against.
posted by Kickstart70 at 10:43 AM on October 31, 2006


"- Foley was in a powerful position"

He was a hypocrite whore politician, a U.S. Congressman. As I see it city cop has more actual power as an individual. Come to think of it, a city councilperson has more power still: think "zoning laws."

"- The page was in a subordinate, non-powerful position"

The scandalous case I'm talking about, after which I quit following it, was the original one, concerning an EX-page. Who wasn't even Foley's page. And who didn't give Foley his email address till he was leaving. You know, previously discussed here.

"- Foley's position, regardless of his intent to use it or not to get his way, made this propositioning a page an inappropriate action"

Again, EX-page. Of legal age. It's more inappropriate than in saying "Nice hat!" to a passing cutie.

And AGAIN, BY DEFINITION, if you've hit on someone OVER LEGAL AGE you have NOT committed a "pedophilic" act.

Got all that? Good.

Now, as for whatever other sins Foley may have committed, as I've previously said, I don't know and I don't care. I have more important things to think about than some other jerk's wreck of a sex life. As for the varying Ages Of Consent in various states, so what: either the dozens of states that have set 16 as the age are wrong, or those that make it 18 are wrong, or (as I contend) the "Age Of Consent" laws are arbitrary bullshit, the fact remains that (barring rare misfortune) the young men we're talking about here were old enough to knock up one's daughter -- hardly "little children". If a 16 year old raped somebody's grandma in the process of robbing and killing her family the outcry would be for the death penalty, and someone who squeaked "But he's just a baby!" would be called a "bleeding-heart sob-sister."

Again: I contend that if Foley was not a Republican, and if the OF LEGAL AGE object of his interest had tits, we would not have a "scandal" in the first place. I.e. Foley's sexuality was used by the Democrats as a stick to beat the Republicans with. That makes it a fagbashing witch hunt, and it's no different when the Good Guys Democrats do it. Yes, I agree the Republicans were culpable in "protecting" Foley -- as culpable as the Democrats are in fagbashing him. In this one matter I have to say I respect the Republican Party more: they did not discriminate against Mark Foley because he's gay.

I feel bad for the Democrats that they're so weak, stupid and impotent that the best they can do is fagbash a nobody. And I feel bad for you, kickstart70, that "shut the fuck up" is the best YOU can do. However, hey, neither is MY problem.
posted by davy at 12:09 PM on October 31, 2006


I feel bad for the Democrats that they're so weak, stupid and impotent that the best they can do is fagbash a nobody.

He's not a nobody, and is responsible along with his party for a wave of Anti-gay legislation and violence and hateful rhetoric that is still ongoing. His party and his own actions and votes in the House have hurt equality and hurt all Americans, not just us.

His personal abuse of his power in the House to stalk and seduce underage pages is criminal. His sad closetcase hypocritical life is not criminal but pathetic and also hurts all Americans--especially us.
posted by amberglow at 12:40 PM on October 31, 2006


"His personal abuse of his power in the House to stalk and seduce underage pages is criminal."

Show me please one "underage" page he's stalked and seduced. Did you miss the part about every young man I've heard Foley accused of "being after" is/was 16 at the time?

As for Foley's distatesful politics, I'm with you on that. However, think of all the nice "liberal" Democrats who hurt ALL Americans worse by voting for the Patriot Act, the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, etc. etc. That is, in my book Foley and the Democrats are tied neck-&-neck for the Fascist Traitor Award -- but Foley they bring down because he's gay (and not good at being sneaky).

Frankly the whole Foley thing strikes me more as an unsuccessful blackmail attempt (i.e. if he'd paid he'd still be in Congress) than an "abuse of public trust" or a "misuse of power" or whatever. Maybe Mark Foley is the Michael Jackson of the Republican Party.

And by the way, sometimes y'all Democrats remind me of the Communist Party members who "stuck with Moscow" after the invasion of Hungary and the Krushchev speech. Why don't you just admit that everything y'all say about "ethics" and "standards" is bullshit, you just want your side to win? Or are you as so deluded that you don't know that much? (And yes, I said the same thing about those Republicans who impeached that ass Clinton over the Lewinsky "scandal".)
posted by davy at 1:23 PM on October 31, 2006


"[I]s/was 16 at the time?"

At least 16. What is the minimum age for pages anyway?
posted by davy at 1:25 PM on October 31, 2006


"...applicants must:

- be 16 years of age at the time of their appointment
- be in their Junior year of high school
- have a cumulative grade point average of "B" or better in all major courses to date."

The issue of Foley's conduct is not about age of consent, etc., but rests on the fact that he may have violated some of the provisions of laws he was instrumental in enacting. Furthermore, congressmen act in loco parentis with the pages they have "hired."

It would be just as inappropriate for a 52-year old teacher/principal/coach to conduct himself in the way Foley did with a 16-y.o.; 17 y.o and 18 y.o. student -- male or female.
posted by ericb at 3:27 PM on October 31, 2006


davy, Foley himself made it illegal and a federal crime to use the internet to do what he did to anyone under 18. Local DC laws (age of consent being 16 there) don't apply online.
posted by amberglow at 4:35 PM on October 31, 2006


"[Foley] may have violated some of the provisions of laws he was instrumental in enacting."

Granted. So what? What do you think people want the power given "law makers" for anyway? Like I said, if you don't expect corruption and hypocrisy from politicians you're a babe in the woods. What do you think you can expect from someone who goes on TV and openly proclaims "I want power!", which is really what "running for office" is anyway?

And not only that: sworn police officers, ostensibly charged with keeping the peace, enforcing the law and preserving public safety, sometimes shoot fleeing "suspects" in the back on crowded streets -- and when we complained we were called all kinds of names, among them "unrealistic." Why should "law makers" be held to a higher standard?

"Don't hate the player, hate the game." Tonight it's so much easier to point to something graymouser said.

As for what you deem "inappropriate" ericb, well, if you say so. Given all the so-called abuses of trust and/or position that politicians are infamous for, I'd think sniffing after a little LEGAL AGE nookie is a relatively minor vice, albeit a stupidly hypocritical one in this case. It's not as bad as, oh, voting for the Patriot Act.

Anyway. I suggest y'all agitate for a repeal of that law that amberglow mentioned. That'd take more guts than some partisan witch hunt, given that one of the first things opponents will bring up is NAMBLA. But oh, I know, you'd rather vote Republican than be associated with those perverts. (Look at how those hypothetical three or four Mefites who might agree with me on this are leaving a tired old dimwit like me to carry this ball, maybe because they shy from being seen as defending "that pedophile Foley.")

By the way, what "ravingly leftist" Democrats voted FOR that Foley project anyway? How does that list cross-reference with those who voted for the Patriot Act and to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, etc. etc. etc.?
posted by davy at 5:15 PM on October 31, 2006


everyone voted for that law (it's to protect children, you know), and it's not such a bad law--and that's not the point anyway, except to point out the overwhelming arrogance and hypocrisy of Foley himself in acting the way he did while pushing this law thru.

davy, he was "sniffing" (and hanging around the page dorm at night, drunk) after underage kids in the Senate's care--that's a problem no matter who you slice it because of the power thing. It's not just some random older man and teen but someone very powerful entrusted with their care while they were away from home.
posted by amberglow at 3:47 PM on November 2, 2006


« Older Leslie Scalapino, poet   |   Life Drawing class as Burlesque show Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post