10/02/2006
Mark Foley Scandal Updates
The news is unfolding on the Foley scandal so rapidly it's hard to keep up. I'll attempt to note new developments today as they come in this post. In the meantime, here's what happened over the weekend.
The updates:
Josh Marshall: Leadership of the House GOP "decapitated" by Foley scandal.
Now, Republican member of the Page Board says she was never told of emails.
Shimkus allowed Foley to spend "a lot of time" with pages, including a private dinner, even after GOP knew he was a problem.
Conservative activists call on Hastert to resign; House speaker still excluding Democrat member of page board from meetings.
ABC: Foley sought and may have had rendezvous with page.
White House brushes off scandal as "simply naughty emails." Snow: "Yes, look, I hate to tell you, but it’s not always pretty up there on Capitol Hill. And there have been other scandals, as you know, that have been more than simply naughty e-mails." (Video) AmericaBlog: "That's all they were says the Bush White House. Just naughty emails between a 52 year old member of Congress and some 16 and 17 year old children. Just naughty emails when a grown man asks a sixteen year old boy to measure his penis. Just naughty emails when a member of Congress asks a child to describe how he masturbates. That's why the GOP House leadership is scrambling. That's why they had to call in the FBI. That's why the Florida Department of Law Enforcement is investigating."
Hypocrite running scared? House Speaker Dennis Hastert removes press releases on his site that detailed efforts to "Keep Kids Safe in Cyberspace".
As could have been predicted, Christian right wingnuts already seizing on misinformed and ignorant homosexuality/pedophilia connection. Peter LaBarbera of the wingnut organization Americans for Truth: "For years, we have seen some Republican Party leaders drift in a pro-homosexual direction. Their rationale is winning the votes of ‘moderate’ swing voters, but they forget that there is a price to pay among values voters when you abandon principle on a core moral issue...Three homosexual Congressmen have been involved in sexual seductions of minor boys, yet ‘gay’ activists ridicule anyone who suggests there is a predatory component to male homosexuality."
Posted 4:00 PM EST by Andy Towle in Mark Foley, News, Republican Party | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
But when you're lying sleazebag hypocrites such as the GOP leadership are, it's extremely easy to rationalize anything as just a "naughty [insert item here]." After all, if the GOP does it, it can't be wrong!
Posted by: Frank L | Oct 2, 2006 12:09:21 PM
Looking at Foley's instant message, I think the real crime here is that he doesn't know the difference between "to" and "too."
Posted by: Paul Adam | Oct 2, 2006 12:14:50 PM
But Foley's getting treatment for alcoholism, so see, really he's just a victim with a disease and it was the alcohol talking... PATHETIC!
Posted by: Scott | Oct 2, 2006 12:17:33 PM
Paul you are a fool
The IMs and emails deatil things like
"measure your penis"......"do you have a hard on"....."are you naked".....etc
Not invcluded the private dinner he had with a 16 year old page
just to name a few
So stop either with the log Cabin repub butt licking job you are doing and or the nambla talking points your are spouting
Ask yourself this, why if it was just between to and too that Rep reynolds willingly accepted a $100,000 bribe from Folley to keep quiet
Just reported that Rep Reynolds after hearing about all of this recieved a $100,000 donation to his campaign fund from folley
Posted by: jimmyboyo | Oct 2, 2006 12:19:18 PM
There's a predatory component to male heterosexuality. I guess this applies to all heterosexual men.
Posted by: Anon1 | Oct 2, 2006 12:50:25 PM
Yes Anon1
which nbrings up the Spokesperson at Homeland security who was busted a few months ago for soliciting sex from a minor on line
Some other repub dud recently got busted for exposing in a mall bathroom to a 13-14 year old girl
This proves 1 thing....GOP= Goddamn old perverts
The foley scandal has blown up where as the other didn't due to the coverup........Folley would have blown over quickly if there had been no evidence of a coverup
Posted by: jimmyboyo | Oct 2, 2006 1:26:14 PM
BEFORE he became a US Congressman, Foley served long term in the Florida Legislature with ANOTHER Young unmarried REPUBLICAN Legislator and THEY were known for being long term "Room Mates" with the rumor being that they were MUCH MORE than "Room Mates"
This other Legislator's name???
CHARLIE CHRIST
Posted by: kuros | Oct 2, 2006 1:36:33 PM
About the predictable smears we are now getting from anti-gay groups, now using the Foley scandal to say gay = pedophile...
Here are the less-than-impressive PR responses from both the NGLTF and the HRC...this from today's Miami Herald:
"...Other gay activists were more circumspect.
''It's a tragedy for him and his family. I don't want to get into the pain of the closet. It's irrelevant if he's gay or not,'' said Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.
Luis Vizcaiño, communications and marketing director for Human Rights Campaign, declined to discuss Foley's resignation. ''We're not going to comment on it,'' he said.
In 2005, HRC gave Foley an 88 out of 100 score on gay issues, making him one of the highest-ranked Republicans in Congress."
WTF!!!!
Excuse me, but when our political enemies are out there using this Foley scandal to say that gays are pedophiles...the groups representing us need to do a HELL a lot more than say "no comment!" This is NOT a time to be "circumspect."
Like I wrote here earlier, what we NEED to be doing RIGHT NOW is denouncing the Foleys', NAMBLA pervs and their fellow travellers out there in the STRONGEST possible terms.
Posted by: Pompeius | Oct 2, 2006 1:37:17 PM
**This proves 1 thing....GOP= Goddamn old perverts**
No, what this shows is that there is a double standard about perverted old men. Here's a quick lesson for you: if its a man coming on to an underage girl, its icky and inappropriate. If its a man coming on to an underage BOY, then its "pedophilia" and a sign that all gays are pathological predators.
So please remember that there is a large difference between a 13 year old girl and a 16-17 year old boy. Foley's behavior (thus far) has not been pedophilic, and framing it in those terms plays directly into the hands of right-wing nutters who want to further the myth that gay=pedophile. Instead, call him a predator, a dirty old man, an authority figure abusing power, but don't use the p word, please.
Posted by: Anon2 | Oct 2, 2006 1:38:43 PM
POMP
^5
Amen (getting an amen from an atheist is huge )
Preach on
HRC etc should be out in force denouncing this guy, pointing out facts about molesters of minors (like FBI profile is white, straight, and family member), etc
Anon1
WTF are you smoking dude?
The above mentioned repub molesters/ perverts have been thrown in jail. Instantly thrown in jail and denounced. There crimes vs Foleys is the COVER UP!!!!!!!!!
it is the COVER UP!!!!!!!! in the foley case that is driving this.
Posted by: jimmyboyo | Oct 2, 2006 1:55:55 PM
Does anyone find it strange that copies of his Instant Messages came so easily into ABC's hands? Yes, I know that they can be copied and saved before one logs off and loses them, but why would these "children" think to do that?
Posted by: Tagg | Oct 2, 2006 2:00:13 PM
My point was about public outcry and terminology/language. Simple fact is that creepy old gay men hitting on 16-17 year old boys are called "pedophiles" by mainstream societies, while their heterosexual counterparts aren't. This is a HUGE issue. I'm not even discussing what Foley did, it was obviously wrong and reprehensible. What I'm discussing here is the reaction, which is far and above the reaction that equivalent heterosexual crimes get. Can you imagine a similar uproar if you heard "Repub. Congressman hits on 17 year old girl"? No, people would think he was gross and he might (might!) have to resign, but the reaction would not be as strong nor would the same language be used (child molestor, pedophile, sicko - which all suggest pathology and play into the myth of gay = mentally ill).
I am just being real here. Wake up and notice the difference.
There is a really good article about this phenomenon from The Advocate: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1589/is_2002_August_20/ai_90164073
Posted by: Anon | Oct 2, 2006 2:07:20 PM
Besides, paedophilia and paederasty are differents. Paederasty embraces a wide range of erotic practices between adult males and adolescent boys. Paedophilia is the paraphilia of being sexually attracted primarily or exclusively to prepubescent or peripubescent children.
Posted by: anonymous | Oct 2, 2006 2:22:33 PM
HEY KUROS:
I heard the same thing about Crist, any chance of that getting out in the papers? I know Max Linn has been trying to out Crist for several months now.
Posted by: gay is the new straight | Oct 2, 2006 2:27:42 PM
Foley is a creep - obviously an easy call. Gay or straight, both communities have them.
What I find almost as wrong as a grown man hitting on 16 year-olds is the media free pass given Hastert (for the most part from my reading today) aan the GOP for hiding his activity, hoping to conceal it past the November elections.
The GOP's motto should eb changed to "Party Before Country."
Posted by: Marco | Oct 2, 2006 2:48:31 PM
Something tells me that this isn't the "October Surprise" that Karl Rove bragged about and the Republicans salivated over back in September.
Between the Foley’s Follies scandal and the new revelations about the Rove/Abramoff connections, I don’t know how many more Republican surprises the country can stand.
Posted by: Zeke | Oct 2, 2006 3:26:45 PM
Tagg -- Yes, I think there is more--perhaps much more--to that part of the story. I also find VERY odd the specific language in some of the exchanges:
"I'm still young...like under 18. I don't want to do anything illegal...im not 18."
Doesn't this sound a little odd to anyone? Does this read like a natural IM exchange comment or like intentional placement of specific information for the purposes of incriminating documentation?
If Foley's predelictions were known (which apparently they were), it would have been all-too easy to set this guy up. I'm not saying he doesn't deserve whatever he gets, but the motivations--and machinations--behind this may well be much more layered than we currently know...
Posted by: rascal | Oct 2, 2006 3:34:22 PM
As a practical manner, of course Democrats are going to make a big fuss about this--they have a strong political reason to do so. This kind of stuff can't help but hurt the GOP, especially with "family values" supporters. There's no way messages like those can be defended. But I do have to wonder why it's inherently worse to hit on sixteen and seventeen year old pages than to actually have sex with one, as Representative Studds from Massachusetts did. Studds was censured but stayed in Congress and was continually reelected until he retired ten years ago. From what some are saying here, shouldn't Studds have been condemned as a NAMBLA member instead of reeelected continuously? It seems Masachusetts, however, recognizes the age of consent as sixteen. So was what Studds did wrong or not? Society, at least in Massachusetts, seemed to say no.
In Foley's case, what strikes me as really wrong about what he did is that he had a mentor relationship with these young pages and he was treating them as objects of his lust. It's a total violation of trust that was placed in him by the parents of these pages, whether the pages were willing participants or not. It's like one of these women schoolteachers who has sex with her male students. But the funny thing there too is that a lot of people say that the teacher sex was no big deal, that the boys who have sex with their schoolteachers "got lucky." So I kind of think society is more confused here about the rightness and the wrongness of this stuff than some here are letting on.
Now we are even hearing net talk, from posters on both the Right and the Left, of a "gay pedophile ring" in Congress. It seems the lurid sound of that is too much for people to resist. So I do fear there is going to be considerable pandering to anti-gay prejudice here. The blame for that ultimately has to rest with Horny Mr. Foley, who had a kink in his brain, clearly. Unfortunately, he's now become the poster boy for all gay men in a lot of people's minds.
Posted by: Jimmy Jimmereeno | Oct 2, 2006 4:07:15 PM
am i imagining things? there is no difference between sexualizing children...13 or 16, male or female. we think because it's advertising and it's pretty that it is ok and harmless. not so.
look at the crap cindy crawford is getting for allowing her little girl (10 y.o. i think) pose topless and in a suggestive manner for a photo shot.
in my mind, it is irrelevant if mark foley is gay, a pedophile or an alcoholic, he used is position to gain access to minors with whom he engaged in appropriate and perhaps criminal behavior. period.
Posted by: hoya86 | Oct 2, 2006 4:08:08 PM
The serious issue he is BEYOND Foley. That was just the start of it.
The cover-up and negligence of the House leadership is the true crime. They chose politics over care for the Page.
Hastert should resign--but the longer he stays the worse it will be for the Repubs.
Posted by: dc-20008 | Oct 2, 2006 4:26:08 PM
jimmy jimereno
One diference with Studds was that the 17 year old went public with Studds and said he was very consensual and that they were in a relationship
That is hugely different from 16 year olds in hiding, writing on the printed out e-mails and Ims "icky" 13 times and passing around warnings to other pages to beware of foley.
Another difference between the Studds case and this one was that There was no Adam Walsh Act 2006 when Studds did his thing. Thus the age of consent law applied. Now though Foley falls under the FEDERAL LAW (fed law nullifies all state laws on the subject) explicitly sites 18-21 (there is some debate on official fed minor status age....but either or the 16 year old is considered a minor by the federal gov.) and under as being ILLEGAL for any adult to even talk about sex, let alone solicit sex, or have sex with a minor. That Adam Walsh Act was coauthored by Folley ironicaly. he screwed himself.
Also as stated before....there was NO coverup with the Studds case. The foley case has a huge long standing cover up. The crime itself isn't what this whole thing is about anymore anyway. It is the cover up!!!
It is the cover up!!!
Repeat after me
it is the cover up!!!
Before you bring up clinton. Monica was 22-23 NOT a minor
Before you bring up Barney Frank....That was a prostitution ring made up of ADULTS....NOT minors
Get your nose out of Gannon, Mehlman's, and Rove's collective butts
Posted by: jimmyboyo | Oct 2, 2006 4:26:37 PM
January 2001: Just before leaving office, President Clinton (at the urging of Jesse Jackson, among others) commuted the sentence of former Illinois congressman Mel Reynolds, who had spent 30 months in a state prison for having sex with a 16-year-old campaign volunteer and was serving a five-year sentence in federal prison for lying to obtain loans and illegally diverting campaign money for personal use.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/sexuality/reynolds.asp
Posted by: Joe | Oct 2, 2006 4:26:41 PM
biatcccch is a case in point about what I said yesterday
We are probably under a microscope at the moment from right wing wackos and any talk not focusing on the creepyness of folley and anger at the coverup will provide fuel for the wingnuts fire.
Posted by: jimmyboyo | Oct 2, 2006 4:36:15 PM
Joe
no one has said Clinton was a saint
If you believe bush when he leaves office won't be pardonging repub crooks than you are absolutely naive. The pardoning power is a seperate and distinct scandal from a 52 year old sexualy harrasing 16 year olds. As you yourself pointed out...the guy was convicted and did serve some time......All president's ability to pardon people is a totaly seperate subject.
Posted by: jimmyboyo | Oct 2, 2006 4:39:55 PM
Jimmyboyo - my point wasn't to say anything about whether or not what Foley is doing is right or wrong or as a commentary about pardoning. My point is that politicians are corrupt, republican and democrat - so when democrats go ape over situations like this, they tend to forget their own party's indescretions. I'm neither a repub or demo, because they are both rotten to their core.
Posted by: Joe | Oct 2, 2006 4:48:16 PM