It's all politics, of course, in the era of the October Surprise (an "unkown source" first gave the Foley e-mails to ABC News). And here's how the game is played out (from a campaign press release):
Richard Wright, Democratic Party nominee for the House of Representatives in the 4th Congressional District [in Washington state], will hold a press conference Tuesday morning in Pasco to demand that Congressman Doc Hastings explain why he is not investigating House leaders who were aware of the sexual predatory activities of a Florida Congressman but did nothing about it for months.
The Democrats: Our best hope against the forces of perversion!
More. Gay Democratic activist Mike Rogers brags about his role.
As one of our commenters, "Guy," suggests, the scandal is causing a huge anti-gay political backlash that's likely to ensure passage of all the anti-gay amendments. I've also heard that it's leading to a purge of gay/gay-friendly GOP staffers on the Hill, now seen as "pedophile protectors."
Also. If the House leaders had moved earlier to censure Foley, as high-horse Democrats declare they should have, based on the evidence they had at the time - overly solicitous e-mails to male pages (and not the IMs) - can you imagine the cries of "homophobia" for Democrat/gay activists!
37 Comments for “As November Approaches…”
posted by kittynboi on
Okay, I’ll put this here but it really can address any number of recent posts.
There is a lot to this Foley business; age of consent issues, what is pedophilia, republican corruption, the reaction of the religious right, how the issue should be handled, whether or not any criticism of Foley is homophobia, etc.
Given that there are indeed many important issues that need addressing, I think the issue of how at fault the Democrats are to even voice the slightest bit of concern is extremely trivial.
Misconduct of the Democrats is not the most immediate issue here, nor is it, in my opinion, even remotely important.
posted by Southern Decency on
The only thing about the scandal relevant to this site is how the anti-gay forces are exploiting this to bring up the old “gays are more likely to molest” canard.
Everything else is just partisan hackery that should not be on a site with the word “independent” in its name.
posted by kittynboi on
I think there is more relevance than that, given that the GOP is a rabidly anti-gay party, moreso than the Democrats, regardless of their own spotty track record. That this could damage the alliance between the GOP and the religious fundamentalist forces is certainly relevant to us.
Further, just because a site eschews allying itself with either political party certainly does not mean it should refrain from commenting on things pertaining to those parties. Given the power of the two party system, and the current climate of partisanism, such a policy would severaly limit what would could focus on altogether.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Why should we avoid discussions of the old parties’ corruption and unsavory activities, when those same parties attempt to micromanage every element of our economic, financial, and personal lives?
When a politician asserts that he’s part of a moral crusade to bring family values and freedom to the people, he’d better not be diddling teenage high school students (or covering for a member of his team who is).
The whole scandal goes directly to the heart of the problem in Washington today — Democrats and Republicans have no real principles other than the primacy of their own political power.
posted by kittynboi on
“”””Why should we avoid discussions of the old parties’ corruption and unsavory activities, when those same parties attempt to micromanage every element of our economic, financial, and personal lives?””””
I’ll tell you exactly why we shouldn’t.
Because some gay republicans would rather shift the blame to gays themselves just to defend their grand ol party which has done sooooo much for them.
I’m trying to be reasonable. A hard thing for me to begin with. But I’m finding the spectacle on this site increasingly sickening. The people here may as well just close their eyes and chant; “the gop is not to blame. the gop is not to blame.”
posted by Guy on
The Democrats give the dirt to ABC, and the result is an anti-gay backlash that’s going to ensure that all the anti-gay amendments pass. And the Democrat-gay activists jumped up and down and clap their little hands. It makes me sick.
posted by kittynboi on
Well, I think you should take some pepto and hold off your sickenss, since there is no proof at all that the Democrats are behind the leak.
posted by Eva Young on
Give me a break. This doesn’t ensure anything about the anti-gay amendments. The effort to purge gays from congress is a more serious problem – and people should be calling in and asking for cooler heads to prevail on that nonsense.
posted by dalea on
The im’s were leaked by a republican staffer, not a democrat as reported at:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/10/4/225622/113
A typical commentator from the ‘left’ at DKOS on the list of gay staffers. It is being compiled by conservatives and republicans, not liberals or democrats”
‘Identifying a bunch of gays that work for Republicans will piss off the homophobic portion of their base.
And firing said staffers, which is the only practical purpose possible of creating such a list, will lead to an avalanche of whistleblowing from the fired staffers.
Although I doubt Repuglicans care about progressives and the LGBT community much, it still remains that firing all the gay staffers wholesale for no reason other than their being gay will alienate progressives and LGBTs even further.
Really, I hope they do it. There’s zero political benefit to be gained, much to be lost, and I would love to see the gay staffers who support Repuglicans and therefore the Repug homophobic gay-bashing agenda get their wake-up call from karma.’
The discussion is at:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/10/4/233445/787
Barney Frank on this subject:
The hypocrisy of the Republicans is that they have more concern for a gay man who misbehaves than for fair treatment of gays who don?t misbehave.
Another thread from ‘the left’:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/10/4/10477/6052
posted by GCA on
I find this whole issue of DEM vs. REP on the Foley debacle extremely partisan on both sides. I do not think this issue has anything to do with party affiliation, other than both sides trying to make the most of it for political purposes. I admit the REPs were caught off guard by this and they are on the defensive. In addition, the media is playing it for all it can. But the real issue has to do with the behavior of an individual and the fact that he is a REP is irrelevant since the party has a strong record of neither condoning nor embracing such behavior. Anyone trying to imply that it is a REP scandal is simply kidding himself. No party seeks to condone and embrace such behavior. They may respond to it poorly, but they don?t seek to support it. In the long run, I agree it will hurt the gay community more than either party because people, both DEMs and REPs will link it to the gayness of the man and not his political leanings. This saddens me but I am already seeing this in discussions I had in my office in SF which is 90% DEM and not very REP friendly. In our openly gay environment, I hear people ask ?why do gays engage in this behavior when they know the risks of getting caught are so great??
In addition, I believe these rants against the REPs add nothing to the debate here because the underlying cause of Foley?s behavior is not because of his political leanings. If the intent is to argue that REPs are anti-gay, there is some legitimacy to that argument. If the intent is to argue that the DEMs are pro-gay, I disagree. After all, I remember Clinton advocated: (1) Don?t Ask, Don?t Tell, (2) Defense of Marriage Act, (3) advised Kerry to support anti-gay initiatives in 2004 in order to frame the argument as a states rights issues as opposed to a federal issue, and (4) on numerous occasions state that he does not believe in gay marriage but is for other gay rights. As one of the leading speakers for the DEMs, that is not exactly support for gays. I believe DEMs are for gays mainly during election time when they need the votes.
I agree with NE Lib when he implies that both DEMs and REPs look out for their own political interests first. That being said, I still believe that one can look to the principles of a particular party over the other. My preference happens to be REPs, but that doesn?t mean I will excuse their behavior or support all their positions. Personally, I think the REPs should strongly rebuke Foley for what he did. If he did not resign, I would have supported his expulsion, even if it meant the REPs losing the House, as I believe it would benefit all Congress in the long run to be rid of such an individual. Of course, this is all premised on whether the facts panned out as they are currently reported. I despise Foley for what he did, but I also have compassion (not sympathy) for him as he made huge judgment errors and destroyed his career, and his personal life appears to be in shambles too. I doubt he has many friends running to comfort him right now. I can?t help but feel sorry for him, the same way I felt for Clinton during Monicagate. Sometimes we do have to separate the sin from the sinner, especially if the sinner is not evil, which I do not think Foley is. This issue reminds me of an experience I encountered years back. I knew a guy in his early 30?s who frequently fooled around with his neighbor?s son who was 17. I never would have guessed this of that individual because he was a genuinely great guy. I guess it just goes to shows, you never know why people do the things they do.
Good night all!
posted by kittynboi on
“”””In addition, I believe these rants against the REPs add nothing to the debate here because the underlying cause of Foley?s behavior is not because of his political leanings.””””
Yes, but the issue of Hastert and others covering for him just to keep his seat is very much political.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Because some gay republicans would rather shift the blame to gays themselves just to defend their grand ol party which has done sooooo much for them.
So once again, we’re going to allow the Republicans to decide what we talk about or don’t talk about, for fear of their “awesome spin capabilities?”
This is one reason why the Democratic party needs to pack up the tent and leave the game — it’s precisely this strategy, used for the last 10 years, which has handed them defeat after defeat.
Anyone can see the Republicans’ posturing on gay issues is shallow, transparent and easily dealt with. All it takes is a couple of people in the mainstream media to point out that pedophilia isn’t exactly a gay issue (as the recent situation in Amish country *more* than amply demonstrates), and hit nitwit GOPers who try to argue otherwise with that point repeatedly.
Of course, they don’t. They’d prefer we just pretend it didn’t happen, or pretend that not discussing these issues — regardless of gender — will somehow result in the diminishing of homophobia.
Except, it doesn’t work that way. To win a debate, you engage with force and eloquence, you don’t try to change the subject and hope everything passes under the bridge. You’d think after five solid strings of crushing losses to Republicans due to employing this strategy, opposition members would “get it.” They still don’t.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
For what little it’s worth, apparently the individual who leaked all the e-mails to the press is a lifelong registered Republican, according to the latest AP story.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Spare me the facile talk of an anti-gay backlash. When was there NOT an anti-gay backlash? We didn’t need a congressional page scandal in order to lose every anti-gay statewide initiative two years ago.
Mike Rogers of BlogActive is an “outing” zealot, which is a reminder that we are not all part of the same movement. I criticized him (among other things) in my last column, here:
http://www.metroweekly.com/gauge/commentary.php?ak=2325
posted by jomicur on
The latest right-wing spin: Tucker Carlson (who I suspect may come tumbling out of his own closet sooner or later) tried to claim that it was “gay activists” who leaked the Foley IMs because they hate him for being closeted. The conservative efforts to spin this mess are getting more and more frantic–and more and more funny.
Meantime there’s now reason to believe, apparently, that the kid Foley had that most notoriously explicit exchange with was 18 (according to a story of the Drudge Report–see comment on Carlson above). If this turns out to be true, the whole thing looks more and more like a right-wing attempt to start a witch hunt.
(And apparently one of the former pages has hired Timothy McVeigh’s lawyer!? Can this thing get any weirder?)
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Mike Rogers of BlogActive is an “outing” zealot, which is a reminder that we are not all part of the same movement.
He’s not just an outing zealot, he’s a partisan outing zealot, who has undertaken some questionable initiatives in the past against individuals whose cardinal sin is disagreeing with him.
re’s now reason to believe, apparently, that the kid Foley had that most notoriously explicit exchange with was 18 (according to a story of the Drudge Report–see comment on Carlson above). If this turns out to be true, the whole thing looks more and more like a right-wing attempt to start a witch hunt.
Why do you say that?
If anything, it’s the right wing which is busy trying to cover for Foley and the Congressional Republicans. If it was a Christian crazy who is responsible for bringing him down, whoever is behind that is sabotaging his own party. Not that this matters particularly from a *policy* perspective, as the Democrats who will take over love the Patriot Act, Iraq War, etc. just as much as the GOP. But it will hurt their specific patronage opportunities.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Barney Frank on this subject:
The hypocrisy of the Republicans is that they have more concern for a gay man who misbehaves than for fair treatment of gays who don?t misbehave.
What’s even more hypocritical is that Mr. Frank claimed Mr. Foley’s sexual orientation was “an open secret,” but kept it secret.
I don’t understand the fawning over the man. He stridently opposed gay marriage initiatives as “the wrong thing at the wrong time” and muttered darkly of a backlash, and now he’s apparently complicit in keeping the door of the Republicrat closet fully locked. Not exactly Mr. Liberation, is he?
posted by jomicur on
NE: Andrew Sullivan is now reporting that the age of sexual consent in DC is 16. (I’d love to know why no one in the media has thought to check before now, and I’m kicking myself for not checking on my own.) This means that NO underage sex took place (and no actual sex at all, as far as we know). Since the kids involved were out of the page program before Foley started emailing them, sexual harassment isn’t an issue either. So what exactly is all the furor about? The only answer that makes sense to me is a kind of homophobic hysteria. And if you listen to the right-wing commentators–Bay Buchanan, Tony Perkins, et al–I don’t see how you can doubt that they’re trying to make as much homophobic hay out of this as possible. Granted, the political flacks are doing everything they can to cover for Hastert & Co., but the “cultural conservatives” are in full battle mode.
Look at it this way: Who wins in this mess? Not the Republicans, certainly. The Democrats, maybe (though I still think they’ll find a way to shoot themselves in the collective foot before the election–and even if they gain power, there’s no reason to think they’ll know what to do with it). Not the gay community–if there’s one certain outcome in all this, it’s that BOTH parties will consider any gay rights legislation toxic for a long time to come. The only clear winners are the “moral values” crowd who want to stigmatize gays as predators. Is it unreasonable to suspect they must be behind this in some way?
posted by jomicur on
I forgot to add: The “Christian right” (or whatever you want to call the values crowd) has made no secret of their unhappiness with the GOP for supposedly abandoning their pet issues–failing to pass the FMA, ban abortion and so on. This “scandal” ensures that the party will get back on track, morality-wise. Again, the cultural values crowd are the only real winners in all of this.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
jomicur, given that some of Foley’s communciations included inviting the pages to his home a few blocks away from the Capitol, it doesn’t appear that they were all **former** pages. I have known all along (and previously noted) that the consent age in D.C. is 16, since I was involved 13 years ago in making sure (when we repealed the DC anti-sodomy law) that the age of consent for gay sex was the same as that for straight sex. (Our point was not that it should be 16 rather than 18, but that whatever it was, it needed to be consistent.) What I find creepy about Foley’s behavior was his abuse of his position.
And as Andrew Sullivan says in his TNR piece: “There is something deeply sick about a Republican elite that is comfortable around gay people, dependent on gay people, staffed by gay people–and yet also rests on brutal exploitation of homophobia to win elections at the base.”
Meanwhile, the turning of this into an anti-gay witchhunt proceeds apace, with the villains now being an alleged cabal of gay Hill staffers. In this, the far right and far left appear to have common ground.
posted by jomicur on
You’re right, I had forgotten about the ones he’d had to his home. But those kids all insist nothing sexual happened. They may be lying, but as far as we know right now, nothing illegal happened. And so all the furor is about…what? a gay man buying pizza for some kids then sending them home? Only the most rabid homophobe could claim that’s sexual harassment.
I couldn’t agree more that Foley’s behavior was, um, creepy. But creepy isn’t the same as illegal. All this frenzy about pizza?!? And I certainly agree with the point Sullivan and you make about the GOP. But that’s nothing like what the focus of the public discussion has been.
I just watched Hastert’s press conference. He said NOTHING new. Still insists that he didn’t know anything till last Friday, etc., etc.
But Pat Buchanan was on, ranting that we need a “full investigation,” by which he was pretty clearly saying we have to have a witch-hunt to root out every queer on the Hill. I’m more and more convinced this whole thing is being orchestrated by the right (remember that the emails were originally leaked by a “long-time Republican”?). The values crowd have clearly wanted to get the GOP back on message with their morality crusade; they figured the party was going to lose next month, so now was the time to strike. As I’ve said, I can’t see that anyone other than the KKKristian right is gaining anything at all from this mess.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Since the kids involved were out of the page program before Foley started emailing them, sexual harassment isn’t an issue either. So what exactly is all the furor about?
It’s about 50-something Congressmen, who hailed themselves as “defenders of family values,” diddling high-school students. I’m sure the average voter for whom character counts would have significant problems with that — especially when the same politician positioned himself as a defender of youthful virtue.
Pat Buchanan was on, ranting that we need a “full investigation,” by which he was pretty clearly saying we have to have a witch-hunt to root out every queer on the Hill
Who cares what Buchanan thinks?
As for “rooting out every queer on the Hill,” I suspect the out gays are already well known.
And as for the closet cases, why should we be particularly concerned about them being outed?
posted by jomicur on
NE, the fact that you and I (and I assume most of the people on this board) see the issue as a matter of GOP hypocrisy doesn’t mean that’s the way most people see it. And the fact that you and I don’t take Pat Buchanan seriously doesn’t mean there aren’t lots of people who do.
The spin put on this story, in every media discussion I’ve seen, is PEDPOHILIA. It doesn’t matter that there is no pedophilia involved–it’s the perception that matters. And the fact that it’s supposedly GAY pedophilia is one the public won’t miss. Buchanan’s sister Bay was just on one of the news channels, and she hit repeatedly on the fact that Foley is a KNOWN HOMOSEXUAL and he was having SEXUAL DISCUSSIONS WITH CHILDREN!!! It’s rubbish, but it’s all the media is carrying; even the commentators who caution that not all gay men are predators haven’t bothered to correct the perception that this is about child-molesting.
I repeat: the only ones who can possibly benefit from the farrago are the right-wingers–and it’s riddled with their rhetoric. I’m not conspiracy-minded enough to believe in some sort of vast, monolithic effort on their part, but I’d bet that a group of them started it, and a lot more of them have been savvy enough to pick up the party line.
As for ?being concerned about closet cases,? do you assume that because they?re closeted they?re therefore working against the gay community? Foley had a pretty fair record on gay issues, for instance. It?s the ones who are closeted but queer-friendly who will suffer in the purge I suspect is coming, not the good little boys and girls who toe the party line.
posted by Randy R. on
There is a lot of hysteria surrounding this scandal, as there was when the church pedophilia scandal brokel. Most Americans figured out that most gays are not pedophiles, and that the real crime was the bishops who covered for the abusing priests. In the long run, it didn’t set back gay rights any more than they were.
Me thinks the same will end up here — the anti-gays will continue to hate gays, and the sane people will still be sane. But, I would venture to guess that this has given a boost to some young questioning kids who thought they were all alone with their same-sex attractions, only now to find out that it’s actually quite common. And that you can even be elected to congress and be gay.
Remember — the religious right wants to pretend we don’t exist, and our best weapon is to say loud and clear, “I’m gay, and I’m here!”
posted by Southernpride on
The bottom line is that if you are a Republican for the right reasons you will remain one. Whether others understand that or not simply doesn’t matter. I am tired of all this over-analysis. Foley did something wrong. He is gone. Hastert isn’t resigning and shouldn’t. If Democrats win back Congress because of this they’ll deserve all the misery that is sure to come their own way in the next two years. Bring on 2008 and a McCain presidency. I’ve always thought gays should vote for candidates based on a set of issues and NOT just the gay ones.
posted by kittynboi on
“”””Bring on 2008 and a McCain presidency.””””
LOLSTRAVAGANZA.
“””” I’ve always thought gays should vote for candidates based on a set of issues and NOT just the gay ones.””””
A lot of them do. Just because they don’t vote on issues you think they should doesn’t mean they don’t vote on other issues they find important in addition to being gay.
I’ve known of plenty of gays who care about a lot of issues.
You just have this incredibly naive view that if gays cared more about non gay issues they would all care about the exact same things you do. Which is total nonsense. But you seem to think that all gays will inherently agree with the right wing when the gay issues are removed from the equation.
Well, thats not the case.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
As for ?being concerned about closet cases,? do you assume that because they?re closeted they?re therefore working against the gay community?
No, I just don’t care about their closeted status one way or the other. And Foley’s record isn’t that good — he was a big DOMA supporter.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
it’s that BOTH parties will consider any gay rights legislation toxic for a long time to come
That’s nothing new. The Republicrats have long been a homophobic duo. . . even Clinton materially damaged the legal status of gays.
If anything, this incident should wake people up to the futility of supporting either of the old parties on any gay rights issue.
posted by Drew on
Unless charged with something more substantial, prosecuting Foley endangers freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of association and the right to engage in a private conversation. I a
posted by dalea on
‘And as for the closet cases, why should we be particularly concerned about them being outed?’
No clue why we should. Seems like an idea plucked out of the air.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Unless charged with something more substantial, prosecuting Foley endangers freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of association and the right to engage in a private conversation
Oh, I largely agree. Perhaps Foley should have thought about those consequences before writing the law?
posted by raj on
Northeast Libertarian | October 6, 2006, 9:53am |
Perhaps Foley should have thought about those consequences before writing the law?
It is ironic that Foley was instrumental in getting the Adam Walsh law passed, but it was only passed last July, and from what I have seen, his communications were before the law was enacted. The law would not apply to communications before the law was enacted.
posted by ETJB on
Stephen, I am really shocked at how you see to feel that it is morally or legally ok for a Congresman or woman to do that this one did.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
No, I just don’t care about their closeted status one way or the other. And Foley’s record isn’t that good — he was a big DOMA supporter.
Of course, the fact that he voted against the MPA is conveniently left out, as is the fact that his HRC score in the previous three Congresses has been 83 or above — and indeed was perfect in 1999-2000.
In short, better than a lot of Dems.
‘And as for the closet cases, why should we be particularly concerned about them being outed?’
No clue why we should. Seems like an idea plucked out of the air.
Given that the argument for outing is “exposing hypocrisy”….then one could naturally apply that to any such situation.
Personally, I happen to think that coming out should be one’s own decision and not be forced on them.
But then again, I’ve shown myself quite capable of passing pro-gay initiatives and defusing homophobia WITHOUT having to air peoples’ dirty laundry.
Generally, I find the only people that support outing are ones who are too repulsive to voters to get something accomplished any other way, and too shortsighted to realize that outing only reinforces the theory that gays are secretly trying to take over the world and impose their agenda.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
the fact that he voted against the MPA is conveniently left out
What a courageous act!
his HRC score in the previous three Congresses has been 83 or above — and indeed was perfect in 1999-2000.
In short, better than a lot of Dems.
So he beat a couple of his fellow Republicrats. Whoopie.
I find the only people that support outing are ones who are too repulsive to voters to get something accomplished any other way, and too shortsighted to realize that outing only reinforces the theory that gays are secretly trying to take over the world and impose their agenda.
Actually, my view is pretty simple. I don’t care much about the fate of closet cases one way or the other. I don’t out people, but I don’t care about the wheedling of closeted sorts who seek power for themselves by lying about their sexual orientation and then complaining of victimhood when their big lie finally backfires on them.
posted by Bobby on
“the only ones who can possibly benefit from the farrago are the right-wingers”
—I disagree, all republicans are mourning. This is an embarasment. If it had happened to a democrat, we’d all be pointing fingers and saying “see, I told you so.” But when it happens in our own backyard, and to one who had a good conservative record, it’s shameful.
Why did Foley do this? Why couldn’t he chat with older men? Why was he asking a 16 year old how big his penis was? (I read the transcripts at ABC) Jesus Christ, this lack of common sense we expect from the left, not the right! The right is supposed to be judgemental. We’re supposed to have standards of right and wrong. And when we screw up, we’re supposed to do it in ways that are not too embarassing.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Why did Foley do this? Why couldn’t he chat with older men? Why was he asking a 16 year old how big his penis was?
It’s a natural outgrowth of men who allow power to go to their (larger) head. Foley believed himself to be above common decency, the law, etc.
Now that he’s been unmasked as a ridiculous hypocrite (he certainly wasn’t keen on being viewed as a gay man when he was at the center of power, was he?), he’s got to glom on to the gay movement as a way to recover some authority and enter a new career as a professional victim, ala Jim McG. I hope he fails miserably at that task.