Barney Frank: “Gay GOP Like Secret Jews”

Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) talks to The Advocate about Foley and the possible purge of gay Republicans from the Party:

Frank“This is a real crisis, since before, gays in the Republican Party were willing to be tolerated, but Republicans will now be more nervous having gay people in positions of power. They have been critical of people who are out and gay—there could be a real purge of gays in the Republican Party now. It’s probably just enough for people to be perceived to be gay… Newt Gingrich said the Republicans couldn’t have publicly reprimanded Foley or they would be accused of gay-bashing. That’s just gibberish. There would probably be just as much uproar if it was an underage female, because of Foley’s work with children. In fact, I think the media has been fairly good about not gay-bashing this scandal.”

Frank also talks about how gay male politicians attend functions in Washington with male dates when the Democrats are in office, but show up with their beards under Republican administrations:

“Once, at a congressional Christmas party at the White House, my ex-boyfriend Herb went up to Foley, who was with a female date, and said to him, ‘Why don’t you get a real date?’ Foley didn’t say anything.”

OTHER DEVELOPMENTS

road.jpg Lawyer: Matt Drudge story on Page’s “prank” IMs “a piece of fiction.”. “Stephen Jones (the lwayer for the page in question) told the Daily Oklahoman that “there is not any aspect of this matter that is a practical joke nor should anyone treat it that way.”

road.jpg Three more pages come forward. ABC reports that pages from the classes of 1998, 2000 and 2002 have told authorities they were approached by Foley.

2002 Page: “I was seventeen years old and just returned to [my home state] when Foley began to e-mail me, asking if I had ever seen my page roommates naked and how big their penises were.”

2000 Page: “His e-mails developed into sexually explicit conversations, and he asked me for photographs of my erect penis.”

1998 Page: “Foley would say he was sitting in his boxers and ask what I was wearing. It became more weird, and I stopped responding.”

Previously
Hastert Asked “To Intervene” on Foley Three Years Ago [tr]
Mark Foley’s Indiscretions Began in ’95, as did Cover-Up [tr]
Foley is Gay, Says Attorney; Was Molested by Clergyman as Teenager [tr]
The Talk: Foley, Jon Stewart, Hastert, Bay Buchanan [tr]
Mark Foley Scandal Updates [tr]
Investigations Begin into Cover-up Surrounding Mark Foley: Republican Leaders Knew of Misdeeds for Five Years, Did Nothing [tr]
Political Page Turner: Rep. Mark Foley Resigns Seat Over Inappropriate Emails [tr]
Male Page and Rep Mark Foley in Troubling Email Exchange [tr]

Comments

  1. RichB says

    The closeted gay Republican aspect of this scandal has the potential to do more then just get the Democrats elected in Congress next month. If the fundies of the Republican base realized how gay the Republican leadership is, it would undermine the coalition that has allowed then to dominate US politics for the past decade or more. The mainstream American press (and a good portion of the blogoshpere) has played a huge role in supporting this coalition by refusing to discuss the homosexuality of Republican Party leaders like Ken Mehlman, head of the Republican National Committee; Lindsay Graham, Senator from South Carolina and one of the prosecutors in the Clinton impeachment trial; and David Dreier, Representative from California and head of the House Rules Committee. The hypocrisy of these people would be ripped to shreds in minutes if the US had a press like that in Britain. Instead, Americans only get to hear the pre-packaged moralizing and posturing that the Republican PR machine wants them to hear. Of course, the American press won’t even talk about their role in this, much less honestly report on politicians running the country.

  2. Anon says

    That was pretty nasty of BF’s Ex! Then again, in DC, if you want a friend, get a dog…

    BF here carefully sidesteps the issue of whether gay congressmen should out themselves, since of course, he himself was only outed after his own sex scandal.

    These issues definitely deserve more press and airtime, but the town is dominated by fear.

  3. Pompeius says

    It’s a bit interesting all these strident “prank” denials we are getting from these pages lawyers. Yesterday the attorney for one of the 3 new ABC pages said of his clients IMs: “This was no prank.” Even though NOBODY accused his emails of even being a prank in the first place…a pre-emptive denial!

    Now today, we get the lawyer for the Drudge page jumping up and down screaming “NO! NOT a prank! My client is a VICTIM, not a prankster! Noooooo!”

    AWFULLY touchy these lawyers are on this subject, eh?

    LOL! Let me spell out what I think is obviously coming down the pike here:

    CIVIL LAWSUITS.

    By the pages. For sexual harrassment. Against not only Foley, but against the deepest pockets of any employer on the planet: the Federal Government.

    I gotta say, for the lawyers involved…who’ll get up to 40% of the cut… this is probably gonna be the most high profile and lucrative sexual harrassment suit in world history. And against the government! 50 million to each page? A hundred million? More? The sky’s the limit when you sue the US Government.

    Unless…it’s shown that your client provoked the incident as a “prank.” That you set the whole thing up. In that case… you get bupkiss. Your sexual harrassment claim just about vanishes in that scenario!

    LOL! OF COURSE these lawyers are gonna scream “NO PRANK!” Hell, if I were these kids lawyers, I’d be screaming this to the media too.

  4. Andrew says

    I’m not a lawyer, but I don’t think you can sue the Federal Government for something like this. Also, most states have a two year statute of limitations.

  5. Pompeius says

    Andrew,

    Yeah good point, there is an immunity issue here I guess…but the thing about sovereign immunity is that the government can waive it…and permit the suits to go forward.

    And the political pressure on Congress to waive in this circumstance is going to be overwhelming, one would think? In the wake of this scandal, in this current political climate…who in Congress would dare to vote against waiving immunity for these exploited pages?

  6. jimmyboyo says

    Pomp

    Here is where we divide on our earlier agreements about this scandal.

    What is actualy going on is repubs putting out lies about “it is just a prank” to try to save themselves.

    I don’t debate the possibiltiy of civil suits….but to sumerly dismiss the “NOT a prank” statement is just siding with the republican leadership cover up

  7. sam says

    There’s no sovereign immunity for a Title VII Civil Rights suit, which is what a sexual harassment suit would be. They would be alleging constitutional violations, and Congress is certainly not immune to that.

  8. Pompeius says

    Well, I frankly don’t see how it being a prank exhonerates Foley or the Republicans at all. You think if true it might? How?

    “Prank” just means the page was being insincere when he was typing his IM to Foley. Doesn’t change the fact Foley is a disgusting perv who swallowed the bait.

  9. Leland says

    This has turned into a modern R-rated version of “Lord of the Flies,” with DC the island on which all of the madness and ruthlessness evolves. Now more young guys are lining up to get on camera to accuse Foley of wanting their weiner, too, than apply for “American Idol.”

    “There would probably be just as much uproar if it was an underage female” In a pig’s eye! “underage”—another “expert” on the law. “The media has been fairly good”??? Frank’s take on all this is as selectively perceptive as all of his Ex Barneydra pontifications—which means they are to be taken with a sea of salt. I often wonder how different things would be had Boston lesbian Elaine Noble [the FIRST—not Harvey Milk—significant office holder to come out and the one who helped persuade Frank to run for any office] had not yielded the nomination to Frank to run for Father Drinan’s House seat.

    With typical arrogant “forget my own past” schadenfreude, Frank is bragging about his ex confronting Foley with a beard? How courageous—NOT—given it was AFTER Frank had FINALLY come out himself. He had held office in MA and DC for 15 years before HE found the balls to come out. And, he, like a certain other gay Congressman continued to do very self-destructive things such a hiring prostitutes. In fact, he might apply to Foley what he’s said about himself: “All the positive aspects to my coming out were nearly undone by my own stupidity.” Of course, in Foley’s case it’s been totally undone.

    And, if then teenager Reichen Lehmkuhl had had his ears already surgically pinned out when he met with Frank for a recommendation to the US Air Force Academy, Frank might have deep-throated more than a sandwich during their private time together. Today, one would be hard pressed to say which is more constantly posing for a statue.

  10. Anon says

    Leland: You do somehow manage to turn everything back to the big R. It’s getting odd. We can agree on BF though.

    I don’t think Title VII applies to Congress since they are responsible for their own enforcement provisions, however, there were a lot of mini-scandals in the 80’s and 90’s regarding Congress passing laws that applied to everyone but themselves.

    Ah yes, here is a somewhat illuminating article, though the abuses so far alleged here seemed to have occured after the pages left Congress:

    http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/1005foley-law1005.html

  11. Pompeius says

    Yes this Reichen obsession of Leland is getting too obvious too ignore…is Leland a Reichenophile? He was posting shirtless pics of Reichen fluffing himself the other day; if that is not a sure sign of Reichenophilia then I don’t know what is.

    BTW Leland…you got any more pics? :)

    Anon, good article. It looks like the civil suit aspect of all this will soon more to the front burner.

  12. devilgirl says

    Is everyone forgetting that this is a crime of PEDOPHILIA, not of being gay??? I mean, notice how silent the Republicans have been? But when they do speak out, they’ll turn on Foley for being gay, pandering to their paranoid constituents, rather than for being a pedophile!
    I am so effing sick and tired of these dirty, pervy old men blaming their sick twisted shizz on being gay, alcoholic, and being molested as kids. What a trifecta!!
    And what an effing surprise (*YAWN*).
    Shut the eff up, Foley, admit to everyone that you are a sick twisted HYPOCRITICAL f*ck, and quit with the excuses. You may be gay, but being gay does NOT make you a pedophile. You did that yourself. You disgust me.

  13. RB says

    The longer this goes on the more difficult it is going to be for gays, republicans or democrats! ANYONE that was on the fence about gay rights just joined the far right! And yet we do not get that. The best thing for gay rights is to distance ourselves and stop the witch hunt. We need to come out against Foley, as he was WRONG, and assert the difference between being gay and being a pedophile! Foley has single-handedly set back gay rights in this country. Our coninued attacks on the Republican party only provides fuel for the fire of the far right. The more we attack and keep this in the news the more people move to the right on gay issues. It really is not that hard to understand. We WILL NOT WIN THIS ONE!

  14. Pompeius says

    The latest Foleymania madness: The law firm representing former page Jordan Edmund is threatening the blogger who – thanks to an ABC fuckup – cleverly tracked him down. Is “respectfully demanding” he take down from his blog all the evidence conclusively linking Edmund to the ABC IMs:

    http://www.newsok.com/article/keyword/2951965/

    LOL! Talk about closing the barn door after the horse has left…