Much of my weekend time (and much during the week) is still being taken up with an ongoing parental health issue, so I'm a bit behind getting to the Mark Foley brouhaha. Anyhow, Gay Patriot does an able job of providing further links.
I agree that this "scandal" is fairly tepid [update: not! see below]. But closeted politicos, get a clue! Lying and hiding makes you do really stupid things, and will often lead you to wholly inappropriate targets of your affection. And your enemies are just waiting to pounce, given the opportunity.
More. OK, now with the news of Foley's more explicit IMs to several male pages, it's a bit bigger scandal, with John Kerry declaring of Foley's come-ons, "Every parent in America is disgusted and disturbed by it."
Query: We rightly distinguish between pedophiles and gays; should we do the same with ephebophiles (those primarily attracted to adolescents)?
Foley was a moderate Republican who, while never "out," appeared at Log Cabin events. It's interesting that his Palm Beach district is now expected to go Democratic, as is the Tuscon, Ariz., district of retiring, openly gay Rep. Jim Kolbe.
44 Comments for “Foley Is Kaput.”
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
It makes one wonder what sort of thing happens to teenage girl pages in Washington DC.
It also wonders how much longer Americans will wait to clean out the cesspool that the Republicrats have made Washington into, and replace them with people who aren’t power-hungry animals who misuse their authority to satisfy their basest urges — be it Bill Clinton and his intern, or Foley and his page.
posted by Randy R. on
Uh, I’d say this is more than a tepid affair. If it weren’t then why would Foley have resigned so quickly? He was soliciting sex from a minor. I guess breaking laws is now considered a “tepid affair.” Hey, why don’t we ask a county prosecutor down in Florida if a 60+ old man soliciting sex from a 16 year old boy is considered tepid in their parts! Maybe this sort of thing is considered tepid in places where the ACLU holds sway, but I’m sure in those places where people know how to put gays in their place would think otherwise, and that includes a few southern states I know of.
As for whether this is a scandal, you have a member of congress, who is head of the a commission that deals with child molestation issues, who was known to have broken the law, and the issue was known to Tom Reynolds and Dennis Hastert, but they kept quiet about it — I’d say this is a coverup for a fellow Republican. They tried to sweep it under the rug.
Suppose a Democrat was caught at this, and the leaders of the Dem party fought to keep it from the police and the public — Me thinks you would find this more than a ‘tepid’ affair.
posted by kittynboi on
“””” I guess breaking laws is now considered a “tepid affair.”””””
Only if the person breaking them is a republican.
posted by Thomas Horsville on
“He was soliciting sex from a minor. I guess breaking laws is now considered a ‘tepid affair.'”
If I am to believe news reports, Mark Foley asked his former page how he was doing after Hurricane Katrina and what he wanted for his birthday. He also asked the boy to send a photograph of himself. What law did he break with this correspondence?
posted by dalea on
Uhhh, you need to get out more Thomas. John at Americablog has long exerpts from the emails. Foley asks if the kid is horney, asks him to strip down, tells him he is striped down, did he get a handjob from his girlfriend. Very sexual, involving at least two pages. Please remember the MSM will shield all repubs, and most dems, from scandal as long as they can. Check it out and see if it is still tepid.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
NL, you are so predictable. Can’t you just once skip your party-line talking points? Even in Washington, most pols are not trying to pick up 16 year olds. By the way, 16 is the age of consent in DC; not that something is appropriate just because it might be legal. And emails between DC or Florida and Louisiana are interstate; I don’t know what the consent age is in those jurisdictions. Anyway, Foley’s responsibility for his actions, and the creepiness of what he did, do not necessarily make your characterization accurate. Repressed closet csses like Foley are a particular type from which one should not generalize about everyone in Washington. The fact that some people abuse their positions in this way does not mean that everyone does. And sitting on the sidelines taking partisan potshots (and, again, falsely treating the two major parties as interchangeable) is not the same as organizing effectively to change things. Those of us who get our hands dirty by dealing with the present messy reality deserve credit rather than brickbats for doing so. How much easier it is to sit back and attack.
posted by Carl on
This is far more than a \\”tepid affair\\”! Aside from Foley\\’s horrible behavior, there is an ongoing question as to how many leaders in the GOP Congress knew about some of this, and why they didn\\’t do anything about it sooner.
The response at some places is basically, \\”Look at what Barney Frank did!\\”, but that involved adults, and the Democrats in House leadership had no idea any of this was going on.
If this scandal is tepid, then I don\\’t know what that says about politics today.
posted by Bobby on
“16 is the age of consent in DC;”
—A 16 year old can’t buy a gun, a ciggarrette, or a beer. What makes you think he can consent to sex with a grown man? Even if the man had been 18, it can still be prosecuted. And it happens to 18 year old men who prey on 16 year old girls.
What Foley did is evil, I don’t care if he’s a republican or if he did good things by passing Jessica’s Law and other good measures. At least Barney Frank didn’t use underage prostitutes. Truth is, no one under 18 should be working in congress. There are statistics that prove congress is filled with drunk drivers, suspected murderors, perverts, and all kind of human garbage.
Foley crossed the line by asking for a picture, and talking about sex to a minor. Even if he didn’t intend to do anything illegal, what he did was bad enough. If you had a 16 year old son, would you want some pervert talking to him? I think not. And don’t give me this bullshit that kids are “little adults.” Unless they emancipated or they start paying taxes, then we can talk about giving them rights.
I hope Foley dies of a heart attack. I was harsh on Clinton when he cheated on his wife with Lewinsky, I won’t be giving Foley any breaks. At least our former perverted president had the decency of commiting adultery with a GROWN UP!
posted by raj on
Ages of consent for the various states and foreign countries are available here.
I’ve read the material at RawStory and at AmericaBlog, and, while I agree with the former page that they were at least inappropriate if not actually creepy, it is doubtful that they would amount to anything that would amount to statutory rape, i.e., a violation of the “age of consent” laws. As I read them, a violation would require some sort of direct sexual contact, or an attempt at such, and I saw nothing in any of the material that suggested that. It was more like phone sex or cybersex, if that.
One thing that I find interesting in this is that most of the material at AmericaBlog appeared to have been logs of conversations (“chats”) over Instant Messaging (IM), which generally is a private chat room. Two points about that. One, at least AOL’s IM software allows a user to block IMs from another user, the blocking being based on the other user’s “handle” (AOL calls it a “screen name”).
Two, it is interesting that the former page took the effort to log the chats: unless the user actually enables logging, the chats are not saved to disk at the end of the chat sessions, but instead are eliminated from the computer. Aside from the question of why the former page didn’t just block Foley’s handle, a further question arises as to why the former page bothered to log the chats at all. There’s something very strange in all that.
posted by mademark on
Only Carl appears to get the bigger picture. Other commenters display an unfortunate stereotype gay men by dimissing it because one of the pages was 16. I can hear James Dobson chuckling already.
‘Mini brouhaha?’ The Republican leadership knew about Foley writing to a teenage page that he wanted to slide his shorts off. They concealed it for months, so as not to lose a seat in the House. It is not a ‘mini’ anything, but rather a disgusting example of an unscrupulous political party and it will (and should) rock the GOP. That you would would dimiss it as a ‘mini-brouhaha’ speaks very poorly of a man being printed on a site that trashes progressives and writes far too often about gay marriage. Gay marriages have kids too, and gay parents don’t want Congressman preying on them. Wake up.
posted by Thomas Horsville on
“John at Americablog has long exerpts from the emails. Foley asks if the kid is horney, asks him to strip down, tells him he is striped down, did he get a handjob from his girlfriend. Very sexual, involving at least two pages.”
Fascinating… So, what law did Mr. Foley break with his correspondence?
posted by Thomas Horsville on
“A 16 year old can’t buy a gun, a ciggarrette, or a beer. What makes you think he can consent to sex with a grown man?”
Just a little question: Are you equally outraged when minors accused of committing a crime are tried as adults?
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Can’t you just once skip your party-line talking points?
You first.
Foley’s behavior is completely unacceptable, an appalling breach of public trust, a disgusting manipulation of a young minor, a massive breach of his own authority over said minor, staggeringly hypocritical given Foley’s own claims of “morality,” and illegal under the law which Foley himself was supporting.
In other words, it’s par for the course for the Republicrats.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
what law did Mr. Foley break with his correspondence?
It says a lot about the character of the two old parties when their supporters spend aeons of time claiming that a clearly immoral, disgusting act by their leadership is OK because it’s “not technically illegal.”
Parents send their children to be pages and interns in the House of Representatives and in the White House to learn about the operations of government, not to be the sexual conquests of closeted Republican congressional perverts or married Democratic presidential perverts.
The same old-party politicians who regularly condemn gay marriage, pass anti-gay laws like the DOMA, advocate for anti-gay constitutional amendments, etc. are passionately defended by gay people when their own absolutely appalling, disgusting, indefensible behavior — manipulation and abuse of authority over the high-school-age and slightly older interns who are sent to learn from them, not be sexually abused by them — convicts them and demonstrates the moral bankruptcy of their character.
Oh, I guess it’s a predictable party line that libertarians (and Libertarians) alike would be disgusted by such behavior and point out it indicates the lack of character of the old parties, right? I mean, fifty-something powerful politicians diddling high school kids sent by their mom and dad to learn about Congress isn’t immoral — in fact, it’s behavior which gay men and women should be passionately defending.
Disgusting.
posted by kittynboi on
“”””Just a little question: Are you equally outraged when minors accused of committing a crime are tried as adults?””””
Owned.
In any case, yes, I think the people calling it a tepid affair would be much more up in arms if this was a Democrat who had done this. I think it just goes to show that people are willing to excuse the GOP of anything just so they don’t appear to harsh on them.
posted by Thomas Horsville on
“It says a lot about the character of the two old parties when their supporters spend aeons of time claiming that a clearly immoral, disgusting act by their leadership is OK because it’s ‘not technically illegal.'”
Since you chose to engage in grandiloquent ramblings instead of answering a simple, straightforward question, I take it that Mr. Foley did not actually break any law. He simply violated your conception of morality.
Your moral beliefs are just that: YOUR moral beliefs. To reprise a line of argumentation with which you are quite familiar, why should anybody care what you believe?
posted by Michael Safdiah on
Let\\’s realize this is not exclusive to the republicans. Each party keeps a list of hot items they can leak to the right authorities just before elections. I\\’m delighted to see another repbulican house seat about to be lost.
I agree with the writer who said Foley should have done his fishing elsewhere, but dang it, some of them pages are so cute – you could just mop \\’em up with a biscuit.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
NL wrote: “In other words, it’s par for the course for the Republicrats.”
NL, stop being glib. “Par for the course” suggests that improper solicitation of pages is normal behavior on Capitol Hill. I don’t think you honestly believe that, which means you are lying for the sake of making a cheap slap at all elected officials in Washington whom you persist in falsely treating as monolithic. What does that accomplish?
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
NL wrote: “It says a lot about the character of the two old parties when their supporters spend aeons of time claiming that a clearly immoral, disgusting act by their leadership is OK because it’s ‘not technically illegal.'”
NL, if all your false generalizations were erased, there would be little left of you. Every gay person I have run into over the past two days, regardless of political views, has been appalled by Foley’s reported behavior. It is highly unlikely that you honestly believe, regardless of what anyone may post on this comments area, that most Republicans and Democrats do not condemn Foley’s actions. Thus another lie for the purpose of cheap point-scoring. The only person you are impressing is yourself.
posted by dalea on
Suppossedly Foley broke laws about soliciting minors for sex, which includes cybersex. By asking leading and pointed sexual questions of someone he knew to be a minor, he was breaking laws concerning online solicitation. That is what I have read. Why would you believe this to be legal, in this day and age?
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
I take it that Mr. Foley did not actually break any law. He simply violated your conception of morality.
Actually, Mr. Foley *did* break the law which he was tabling on the floor of the House of Representatives — it simply hadn’t been passed yet.
‘Tis called hypocrisy.
It is highly unlikely that you honestly believe, regardless of what anyone may post on this comments area, that most Republicans and Democrats do not condemn Foley’s actions.
According to the media, both Republican and Democratic leaders knew about Foley’s behavior for over 10 months, yet did nothing — until he was caught by the media.
Once again, Republicrat morality only seems to work when their activities are laid bare to the public. If things were kept in the good old boy network, not only would Republican and Democratic politicians not care, but Foley’s bill which would have criminalized what he was doing with the page boy would be debated — with Foley passionately condemning his own behavior.
You, Richard, see nothing wrong with this. I happen to think that it indicates a sick, corrupt culture in Washington brought to us by the Republican and Democratic parties. One which, of course, persists and appears to have changed very little.
Whether the 50-something is hitting on young girls who are his interns, or young boys who are his interns, there seems to be no shortage of partisans who, while simultaneously claiming a banner of moral superiority which makes them the perfect arbiters of our own lives, will rush to defend their own resident pervert as entitled to freedom and liberty.
Yet the Republicrats and Demopublicans seek to create laws which would transform ordinary citizens, whose antics aren’t half as bad as the ones they commit (and lie about) in the corridors of power, to jail — or worse.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
“Par for the course” suggests that improper solicitation of pages is normal behavior on Capitol Hill.
In the past ten years, we’ve learned of almost a dozen interns who have been sexually targeted by members of Congress, or the President himself. It would appear that such a thing is indeed normal behavior, and given the protection that Foley received both from his own party and members of the supposed “opposition” — who only reacted after the news went public from the media — they have no objections to the activities as long as they’re not public.
That’s your party in action, Richard.
posted by CLS on
There seems to be some hysteria and misinformation. Foley did not solicit sex though the conversation was sexual. Secondly, in the District the age of consent is 16. In Florida it is 18 so that is why the man in Florida was arrested for sex with a 16 year old. Age of consent varies from state to state. Nor does it matter what the age is for buying booze or anything else. The age of consent in DC IS 16 by law. And there was no actual sexual contact that we know of. Foley’s problem is trying to explain being gay to his party supporters when so many of them hate gays with a passion. Full story at http://www.freestudents.blogspot.com.
posted by dalea on
One major point here is that the leadership of the Rep party was told about this situation some time ago. They did nothing. Which is also illegal. Adults are required to report suspected instances of sexual solicitation of minors to the proper authorities. Covering up and sweeping it under a rug are what got the RC leadership in trouble. When first informed about this situation, the Rep leaders should have gone to the police, or whoever handles cases like this. Interestingly, the lone Dem on the page committee was purposely not informed about any of this.
posted by kittynboi on
“””” Why would you believe this to be legal, in this day and age?””””
Because a republican did it, thats why.
Believe me, if it was a democrat we would get NONE of this talk over whether or not it was illegal and all this, for lack of a better term, moral relativism type assertions.
posted by Thomas Horsville on
“Suppossedly Foley broke laws about soliciting minors for sex, which includes cybersex.”
Really? What did Mr. Foley solicit?
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Foley did not solicit sex though the conversation was sexual
Oh, I guess it depends on what your definition of “is” is, right?
posted by Thomas Horsville on
“Oh, I guess it depends on what your definition of ‘is’ is, right?”
No, it actually depends on what your definition of “solicitation” is: the legal one or the hysterical one.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
I suppose he can stand up, point at the camera, and say “I did not have sex with that boy,” and it’s all OK.
Then he can hop back to condemning homosexual people and the GOP and Democrats can reinitiate their chorus of concern for protecting “the children” from all the bad things out there.
posted by Thomas Horsville on
“I suppose he can stand up, point at the camera, and say “I did not have sex with that boy,” and it’s all OK. Then he can hop back to condemning homosexual people.”
I’m sorry to get in the way of your pavlovian ramblings but Mark Foley has never condemned homosexual people. He sponsored a bill banning job discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and he voted twice against a proposed constitutional amendment against gay marriage.
posted by Mike Airhart on
What clinical evidence is there, that the closet fuels either pedophilia or ephebophilia? Please, let’s not jump to conclusions.
Hasn’t anyone noticed all the uncloseted adults (from female teachers to the Platte Canyon hostage-taker) who have made headlines in recent years by expressing themselves sexually with teen-agers.
Unlike Catholic priests, and like the teachers, Foley allegedly had a domestic life — an adult longtime partner. So it isn’t as though teen-age subordinates were his only available option for sexual expression.
Like the female teachers, Foley may well have been attracted to teen-agers no matter how uncloseted he chose to be.
Foley clearly has serious problems with self-control and self-discipline.
Beyond that, let’s be honest: Adult-teen sexuality is widespread; as a society we do not seem to be either acknowledging or addressing it; and the closet may well be a separate issue.
posted by Randy R. on
It is against the law to solicit sex over the internet with someone who is 16 years old or younger. Foley comments via emails and messages indicate that he was at least hinting at having sex with a 16 year old boy. A strong case can be made that his emails and messages indicated a request for sex, although at least from what I have read, he didn’t actually ask for it. However, the most vile emails and messages have not been made public, so it’s quite likely he did actually ask for it.
Nonetheless, many people have been condemned for solicitation on the basis of what is public.
posted by Thomas Horsville on
“A strong case can be made that his emails and messages indicated a request for sex, although at least from what I have read, he didn’t actually ask for it.”
No meeting for sexual purposes occured. No meeting was planned. The project of a meeting was never mentioned or even hinted at. Unless there is much more in Mr. Foley’s correspondence than what has been reported so far, a case for solicitation would definitely not be strong.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Mark Foley has never condemned homosexual people
Au contraire, you should read some of his comments centered around DOMA sometime… it’s almost as funny as his condemnation of Bill Clinton’s “throwing away his political career over sexual addiction” commentary in the late 1990s.
But don’t let me get in the way of your passionate defense of your family-values pedophile. I do recognize that in Republicrat-land, it’s all about defending the man on your team, regardless of what he actually did. It all depends on what your definition of “is” is, after all.
No meeting for sexual purposes occured. No meeting was planned. The project of a meeting was never mentioned or even hinted at.
Actually, Mr. Foley was known for taking young page boys, alleged objects of his affection, to Morton’s and other Washington restaurants. What happened afterwards is anyone’s guess, but he has taken at least one of his teenaged interests out to an expensive romantic dinner.
Unless there is much more in Mr. Foley’s correspondence than what has been reported so far, a case for solicitation would definitely not be strong.
Again, more of the Republicrat justification for all their unethical activities — what happened might not rise to the level of strictly illegal. The fact that it’s appallingly immoral, and flies in the face of all of their “family values” rhetoric, suddenly doesn’t matter.
posted by etjb on
Are Gay Republicans know defending the right to sexually harass not just employees but underage ones?
BTW, what is the age of consent in the D.C.?
posted by Thomas Horsville on
“I do recognize that in Republicrat-land, it’s all about defending the man on your team, regardless of what he actually did.”
I don’t know how it is in Republicrat-land: never been there. As far I’m concerned, it’s all about not joining a lynch mob.
“Mr. Foley was known for taking young page boys, alleged objects of his affection, to Morton’s and other Washington restaurants. What happened afterwards is anyone’s guess.”
I don’t make guesses on such subjects.
“What happened might not rise to the level of strictly illegal. The fact that it’s appallingly immoral…”
Your moral scale seems strangely graduated. If sending a few horny instant messages to a 16-year-old is “appallingly immoral”, then waging war under false pretenses out of greed or political expediency is what exactly?
posted by Randy R. on
Thomas: These pages worked for the US Congress. There are laws about sexual harassment. Whether solicitation of sex occured or nor, whether actual sex occured or not, there is NO doubt that sexual harassment occured. The federal gov’t has very strict guidelines on this matter and are taught to all employees. In fact, some departments even send out yearly reminders of this.
Understand this: No person, at least in the federal government, should ever have to read any of the stuff Foley has written under any circumstances. There are innumberable reasons why, and you should be quite able to figure them out on your own.
This is particularly egregious because a 16 year old isn’t even an adult, and is therefore even in a weaker position to understand and rebuff Foley’s advances.
IF this doesn’t qualify in your book as sexual harassment, then basically anything goes in the American workplace. however, even Justice Scalia would disagree with you on that one.
posted by kittynboi on
Regarding the age of consent issue;
I know that 16 is the age of consent in D.C., as people keep pointing out. I know that in some places its been lower than that.
But I also seem to recall that, when it comes to minors, isn’t there some kind of like…..upper limit to how old the adult can be or something?
Like, for example; 16 is the legal age of consent, but if the partner is an adult, they can’t be over 21 or something?
Is that the case generally? Or is that just something specific to one state? (If it is, I have no idea which one.)
posted by Thomas Horsville on
“Whether solicitation of sex occured or nor, whether actual sex occured or not, there is NO doubt that sexual harassment occured.”
NO doubt, really?
The EEOC defines sexual harassment as unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature when:
1. Submission to such conduct was made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual’s employment,
2. Submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual was used as the basis for employment decisions affecting such individual, or
3. Such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual’s work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment.
Could you please explain how this definition UNDOUBTEDLY apply to the present case?
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
it’s all about not joining a lynch mob
Unless, of course, that’s a mob ready to condemn feminists, gays, Muslims, or the other villains du jour.
As for the law which Foley broke, it’s a federal law which bans not only solicitation of minors (a line Foley arguably crossed), but also discussions of a sexual nature online with a minor (a line Foley undoubtedly crossed).
It is amusing watching partisan “moral values” conservative Republicans cover for a pedophile though.
posted by Mark Nave on
I live in Mark Foley\\’s district, and find it interesting I\\’ve not heard or read one word about Gary Studds, who took it on the chin kept his seat five more terms. Also, Foley now blames alcohol — a not-so-slick move. It’ll be interesting to see how that plays out.
posted by Thomas Horsville on
“As for the law which Foley broke, it’s a federal law which bans not only solicitation of minors (a line Foley arguably crossed), but also discussions of a sexual nature online with a minor (a line Foley undoubtedly crossed).”
Are we finally getting factual? What is that law banning discussion?
“It is amusing watching partisan ‘moral values’ conservative Republicans cover for a pedophile though.”
And the pavlovian dog keeps barking…
posted by raj on
Thomas Horsville | October 2, 2006, 6:46pm |
What is that law banning discussion?
I suspect that the law that is being referred to is the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 It’s virtually impossible to read, but the point is that it was only passed last July. Foley could not have violated a law banning discussion that hadn’t been passed at the time of the discussion.
The irony, though, is that Foley was instrumental in getting it passed.
posted by Thomas Horsville on
“I suspect that the law that is being referred to is the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006.”
Thank you for providing the reference. I didn’t find a disposition banning discussions of a sexual nature but it may be lost somewhere in the text.