West Palm Beach Democratic Rep. Tim Mahoney's predecessor, GOP Rep. Mark Foley, resigned after (with assistance from the leftwing gay blogosphere), it came to light that he'd been sending sexually suggestive emails to teenage former House pages (over 16, the age of consent in D.C.). Now, Mahoney has agreed to a $121,000 payment to a former mistress who worked on his staff and was threatening to sue him, according to ABC News.
Mahoney, who is married, also promised the woman, Patricia Allen, a $50,000 a year job for two years at the agency that handles his campaign advertising, his staffers said.
The affair between Mahoney and Allen began, according to the current and former staffers, in 2006 when Mahoney was campaigning for Congress against Foley, promising "a world that is safer, more moral." At the time, ABC reports, Mahoney's campaign ads featured a picture of him with his wife, Terry, with the line, "Restoring America's Values Begins at Home."
The staffers say Mahoney first met Allen at a campaign stop and later arranged for her to work as a volunteer on the campaign. Allen also appeared in a Mahoney campaign television commercial, criticizing his opponent.
The Foley scandal led to some of the most egregious outpouring of homophobia by Democrats in recent memory. You may recall, for instance, that there were campaign ads claiming GOP leaders allowed Foley to "molest boys," while some LGBT Democratic activists, it was reported, sent social conservatives copies of "The List" of gay staffers working for Republicans on the Hill, in an effort to get them fired as "pedophile protectors."
Thank goodness we had the Democratic Party to stand up for us…oh, never mind.
More. While ABC broke the story, most major media decides that a big, juicy sex scandal involving a congressman with a "D" after his name is not worth reporting.
13 Comments for “The Party We Are Told We Must Support”
posted by Bobby on
I thought the age of consent was 18? Furthermore, I don’t think it’s legal for a 52 year old to have sex with a 16 year old, or even 17 year old.
“The Foley scandal led to some of the most egregious outpouring of homophobia by Democrats in recent memory.”
—Not true! IF Foley had hire prostitutes of legal age, the scandal would have been different. But as it was, there was no way you could excuse Foley. The democrats simply played politics and Foley had no one to defend his indefensible behavior.
Of course, if Foley had been a democrat, he would still be in office. That’s the difference between republicans and democrats, democrats protect their own, republicans don’t.
posted by Godfrey on
The age of consent is 16 in D.C., and in 31 other states. The rest of the states are either 17 or 18.
There is no federal age of consent law.
posted by Douglas Holley on
Bobby, you say that democrats protect there own, republicans dont.
I guess Scooter Libby was not taken care of, huh?
posted by Pat on
Bobby, I agree with you somewhat. It should be illegal for someone of Foley’s age to have sex (physically or online) with anyone under 18, but it’s not illegal if the person is of the age of consent. My understanding is that all of these pages were over 18 anyway. Gerry Studds should have been expelled from Congress for having sex with a 17 year old page. Again, the page was of the age of consent, but the expulsion should have been because it was with a page. Same for Dan Crane, who at the time, had sex with a 17 year old female page. They both were only censured.
It all comes down to political expediency. Both parties seem to base their actions on whether it will help or hurt them when deciding to protect their own or to throw them to the wolves. Neither take the high road in this matter. I agree that the Democrats exploited Republicans homophobia regarding Foley, and they also did so when Kerry mentioned Mary Cheney. Republicans could have reacted to these actions as if they were given the weather report or something, but they don’t.
David Vitter was protected despite engaging in prostitution activities, whereas Eliot Spitzer wasn’t. Larry Craig, on the other hand, became persona non grata in the Senate for toe tapping. It appears no action was taken when he promised not to run for re-election. Of course, the Democrats in Utah would have exploited Craig’s homosexuality had he decided (and been allowed) to run for re-election.
Sure, there are plenty of examples on the Democratic side. Charles Rangel, at the very least, should have been stripped of his chairmanship. Ted Kennedy should have been expelled in 1969 for his egregious criminal behavior.
posted by avee on
One lesson here is that the Democratic Party is quite willing to traffic in promoting homophobia if they think it will help them defeat a Republican — even an ENDA supporting Republican. The other is that what Steve terms "LGBT Democratic activists" are also willing to join in the homophobic fun. Their goal, after all, is to advance their party, and their positions within the party. Targeting gays for their votes and dollars with a little soothing rhetoric here and there is the means to that end.
posted by Priya Lynn on
Stephen refers to Mahoney as an example of “The party we are told we must support” but ignores a recent example of the party he’d like us to support:
http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=7555
A former assemblyman and current parole-board member was busted last night on child-pornography and soliciting charges, officials said.
Chris Ortloff, 61, was arrested in a Plattsburgh-area motel room in a State Police sting at about 5 p.m.
Ortloff, who allegedly had arranged a date on the Internet with an underage victim he thought would provide sex, had child porn and what was described as “sex paraphernalia” in his possession, according to the officials.
Ortloff, married with two sons, could not be reached for comment. “He was always the tough-on-crime guy in the Assembly who wanted to increase the criminal penalties for all kinds of sex crimes,” said a former associate.
posted by Priya Lynn on
I see I didn’t make it clear, Ortloff is a Republican
posted by Pat on
Avee, the lesson here is that both parties are willing to promote homophobia (in their own way) to help defeat an opponent. Sure, “soothing rhetoric here and there” sure helps. But what helps even more are the actual votes on gay issues. As long as we have votes, such as the FMA in which there is a substantial gap between the two parties, most gay persons are going to side with that party. No, not justifying any blind partisanship. We should look at all candidates individually, and we should condemn homophobia from either party.
posted by Douglas on
“Palin breaks with McCain, backs federal marriage ban”
Looks to me like the Log Cabin Republicans, and others, have some explaining(spinning) to do on how gay friendly Ms. Palin is.
posted by Keith on
“”Palin breaks with McCain, backs federal marriage ban”
Looks to me like the Log Cabin Republicans, and others, have some explaining(spinning) to do on how gay friendly Ms. Palin is.”
Nah, they’ll probably just pretend it didn’t happen.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
It works exactly the same way as HRC and Democrat gays endorsing and supporting FMA supporters.
Or as to how they claim that someone who opposes gay marriage, supports and endorses as models pastors who oppose gay marriage, travels with an entourage that includes advocates of ex-gay therapy, and insists that marriage is a “sacred union” that should be denied to gays, is pro-gay and gay-supportive.
posted by Pat on
It works exactly the same way as HRC and Democrat gays endorsing and supporting FMA supporters.
Not quite, NDT. It would be closer to working “exactly the same way” if HRC and Democrat gays endorsed a candidate who supported a Democrat FMA supporter while THAT candidate’s Republican opponent was not an FMA supporter. I don’t believe that was the case with Harold Ford. I would agree with you that HRC and other gay organizations should have withheld support from either candidate, or at the very least, say that any support was clearly based on the lesser of two anti-gay evils.
Obama is more pro-gay (or if you support same sex marriage, less anti-gay) than McCain. And Biden is much more pro-gay (or less anti-gay) than Palin. McCain is pro-gay by say, 1995 standards, and Palin is pro-gay by 1955 standards. If that’s acceptable enough for LCR, that’s their prerogative. And if they endorse McCain/Palin because of other issues, that’s fine too.
posted by Pat on
Or as to how they claim that someone who opposes gay marriage, supports and endorses as models pastors who oppose gay marriage, travels with an entourage that includes advocates of ex-gay therapy, and insists that marriage is a “sacred union” that should be denied to gays, is pro-gay and gay-supportive.
Thanks, for the info NDT. I’ll keep that in mind if Jakes or Warren run for president. I won’t be voting for them. As for Obama’s position on same sex marriage, sure, I disagree with it. However, as you know, many gay persons insist “that marriage is a ‘sacred union’ that should be denied to gays.” So perhaps it is unfair to classify Obama as anti-gay. If a candidate had Obama’s position on same sex marriage in 2028, I probably wouldn’t even consider voting for that candidate. As it is right now, my support for Obama is based on his and Biden’s views clearly better than McCain/Palin on gay rights issues, and IMO most other issues. In other words, IMO, McCain/Palin would suck worse than Obama/Biden.