quote:All the reports I've read indicate that the intern was 16, which is not "legal age" in this country.
Actually, 16 is indeed the legal age of consent in Washington, D.C. Ironically, it's possible that the only law Foley may have broken is a law he helped write, which makes it illegal to discuss sex with minors online -- regardless of the local age of consent -- in all 50 states.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, many state/local laws raise the age of consent when there are certain power relationships. Plus congressional rules are quite clear on the subject.
I've heard of some non-innocuous emails floating around, I'll see if I can find them. If the only things known about were the more innocuous emails, people who knew in advance have a slight chance of getting off the hook depending on if that was all they heard. Everyone in a position of responsibility who was notified of a possible problem and didn't take the appropriate steps to investigate (which would have included, I don't know, interviewing some pages) should still resign.
posted
I read some of those IMs, and I really wish I hadn't. I'd like to be able to scrub my brain of the knowledge that I now have about how this man thinks. And the fact that they are published online, where anyone can read them and do what they will with them, makes me horribly sad. One of the worst things that I took away from reading them though, was the way that the kid reacted to what was said to him. You get this sense of "Gee Whiz... this powerful guy is saying these things to ME...". There is a distinct sense of naiveté on the boys part, and a distinct sense of POWER play on the grown mans part. It is disfunctional, sad, and truly disturbing.
And it infuriates me that "people", and by that I mean every single person, be they media or not who has done this, is taking something so freaking WRONG and demeaning it by making it nothing more than a political shit slinging fest. That is complete and utter bullshit. A child was taken advantage of, adults contributed to that wrong, and absolutely nothing else has any bearing on the situation. The fact that it was a Republican who did it and a Democrat who pointed it out really shouldnt matter. It doesnt make all Republicans pedophiles, and it doesnt make all Democrats Angels Of Justice. Whoever was involved in allowing this to happen should have their head handed to them on a platter.
Posts: 499 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with foundling about the content of the IMs-- I wish I hadn't read the one or two posted in the news. They're disgusting.
As for why *I'm* making this political, it's what I outlined above. Previous to this administration, I trusted the GOP to do what was morally right, and to be, if not above politicking, at least better than the Dems. (Because the Dems social agenda is, IMHO, woefully misguided) This situation has removed that...I hate to put in these terms...FAITH.
I thought I couldn't BE more cynical about politicians. I was wrong. It sucks to be wrong.
quote:The fact that it was a Republican who did it and a Democrat who pointed it out really shouldnt matter.
It was a Republican who did it, and a Republican who reported it to the elections guy. The Dems didn't know until most of the rest of us did.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Previous to this administration, I trusted the GOP to do what was morally right, and to be, if not above politicking, at least better than the Dems.
Aside from this event, we are talking about politicans who have started wars on false pretenses, attempted to hide failures on a grand scale in Iraq, exposed a CIA agent's cover and then attempted to hide the fact that they did, repeatedly avoided holding Republican officials accountable for possible ethical breaches, intertwined themselves intimiately with Jack Abramoff's shady dealings, used unprecidented redistricting in Texas to get more seats in the House, attempted to hide the abuse of prisoners in Iraq and play it off as an isolated incident perpetrated by misguided ground soldiers, attempted to legally circumvent the Geneva convention so we can get away with more abusing of prisoners, hid privacy-threatening CIA programs that it suspected Americans would not approve of, hid the existence of CIA prisons in foreign countries where they could presumably get away with doing things they couldn't get away with in America, used the emotions of 9/11 to a political advantage, used patriotism as a justification to quell dissent of their policies, and so on. It is a seemingly endless list, and it amounts to a very distinct philosophy of "The ends justifies the means". Or, in other words, it is okay to do whatever it takes to advance their political agenda. It is an effective strategy in the short run, but in the long run the things they have swept under the rug eventually come back to bite them.
What I don't understand is how people can say they didn't know the current Republican leadership operated in this manner when they last voted for them...
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Previous to this administration, I trusted the GOP to do what was morally right, and to be, if not above politicking, at least better than the Dems.
Aside from this event, we are talking about politicans who have started wars on false pretenses, attempted to hide failures on a grand scale in Iraq, exposed a CIA agent's cover and then attempted to hide the fact that they did, repeatedly avoided holding Republican officials accountable for possible ethical breaches, intertwined themselves intimiately with Jack Abramoff's shady dealings, used unprecidented redistricting in Texas to get more seats in the House, attempted to hide the abuse of prisoners in Iraq and play it off as an isolated incident perpetrated by misguided ground soldiers, attempted to legally circumvent the Geneva convention so we can get away with more abusing of prisoners, hid privacy-threatening CIA programs that it suspected Americans would not approve of, hid the existence of CIA prisons in foreign countries where they could presumably get away with doing things they couldn't get away with in America, used the emotions of 9/11 to a political advantage, used patriotism as a justification to quell dissent of their policies, and so on. It is a seemingly endless list, and it amounts to a very distinct philosophy of "The ends justifies the means". Or, in other words, it is okay to do whatever it takes to advance their political agenda. It is an effective strategy in the short run, but in the long run the things they have swept under the rug eventually come back to bite them.
Wow, that's way too long of a list of unsubstantiated allegations for me to tackle. I don't have all day, folks!
Posts: 786 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
'Removed' is a rather sudden and strong word. After sleeping on it, I've decided that 'eroded' is more succinct and correct in my case.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: The strangest part is that Foley sponsored or wrote some of the hardest laws against sexual predators and pedophiles in recent years. Wonder if that was just camoflage or staring at the darkness for so long you become the darkness.
I know people who are addicted to pornography that were they put on a panel to fight against it would do alot more then many who are not addicted to it. They hate the fact they are addicted to it, they just don't know how to escape.
Not saying Foley is this way, I cannot say either way. But I can see somebody who engages in this behavior, hating the fact that they do, and much to fight against it.
I think Kevin Bacon was in a movie where he is a pedophile and struggles against it.
^^ there it is. I want to see it, quite a bit actually. Not many movies deal with the theme of fighting against your inner demons, especially today where so much of what we do is justified and called GOOD because society tells us not to govern our feelings, but to embrace them.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hannity, of Hannity and Combs also tried to deflect the story by bringing up a Democratic sex scandal with a 18 year old page...that took place in 1983.
The handling of this scandal by the Republican leadership is surprising (maybe I'm more surprised by the fact that I'm surprised). They would've scored more points by coming clean as soon as they knew and followed through by tarring Foley and hanging him out to dry. Instead they have to give up a couple more morality points to the Democrats, and they've probably just handed his seat over to the Dems, whereas releasing the story earlier would have gotten his name off the ticket. Now, for the man chosen to replace him, he has to convince voters to put a checkmark next to Foley's name on the ballot, which can't be removed. I'd have a hard time stomaching that, regardless of who I knew the real vote was going to.
What pisses me off on top of this whole debacle, is that even with one more bullet in their belt, the Dems probably still won't be able to mount a good defense. This is the best chance they've had to retake Congress since it was lost, and despite how evenly divided the Congress is, and despite Bush's probable veto of any Democratic pushed legislation, a change in power WILL change the tone of the nation. How much depends entirely on how smart the Dems play it.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sean Hannity has also repeatedly tried to claim, without evidence, that the timing of the Foley scandal was all a Democratic plot. Despite the fact that it's been simmering for at least 10 months, if not years.
Although stopsexpredators.blogspot.com seems to have played a key role in breaking the story-- I hope some Democratic activist isn't behind that blog.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Fox News mistakenly reported Foley as a Democrat when reporting the story (for at least part of the time) since it first broke.
Yeah, there have been at least three separate instances of it. The first could have been a typo -- it was just the letter "D." The second time it was "Dems."
At least the AP corrected their (print) story. I haven't found anything about Fox issuing retractions or corrections on this. My default position was to assume that it was an honest mistake, but the repetition makes me question that assumption.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Can I assume that we all know the difference between homosexuality and child molesting at this point?
I think you might be misinterperting what Gingrich was saying. I believe his point is that Republicans are handled in a much different way then Democrats are in these situations. ABC story "In 1983, two lawmakers were censured by the House of Representatives for having sexual relationships with teenage pages. Rep. Dan Crane, R-Ill., admitted to sexual relations with a 17-year-old female page, while Rep. Gerry Studds, D-Mass., admitted to sexual relations with a 17-year-old male page. The ways each lawmaker handled the scandal — and the consequences they faced afterward — were very different. Crane apologized for his actions, saying, "I'm human" and "I only hope my wife and children will forgive me." He was subsequently voted out of office in 1984. Studds, who was openly gay, said the relationship was consensual and charged that the investigation by the House Ethics Committee raised fundamental questions of privacy. He won re-election the following year — in a more liberal district than Crane's — and served in Congress until his retirement in 1996."
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott, when you put your faith in politicians, you will *always* be disappointed. Those who run the government only get into power because they crave, desire and need it. They will do anything to keep it. Make any deal, sell out any ideal so long as they stay in power. The behavior of the Republicans since they got into power (and the democrats for the previous 50 years) is absolute proof of this.
I think you should re-think your position as an Authoritarian. Look at the people you are giving the authority to.
posted
Then until you are an uncorruptable dictator, you will continue to elect those who do more harm than good.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think what Foley did was repellant, and he deserves to go down for it. I don't know that I'd tar the entire GOP for it. For Abramoff, or Enron, maybe, but not for this.
But naive as it may be, I'd kind of like to see the Democrats win on issues, not a self-destructive cycle of scandals. Stagnant wages, a spiral into civil war in Iraq, stonewalling any movement toward emissions reduction or energy independence; there's plenty there without having to dance the sex, drugs, and money fandango.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know, I'd categorize soliciting sex from minors in the workplace a pretty darn serious issue, on par with the first set you listed, Sterling.
I'd say that the GOP definitely deserves to be tarred with this. That's the business of politics, after all. Foley was a representative of the party, one who aided it in the past. If he were just some nameless flunky aide somewhere, it'd be one thing. But he's way up at the top. Politics is about reputation, people, compromise, ambition, etc.
These are not things that are decided solely on what the entire organization, as a whole, does. And they shouldn't be, either. In any case, I feel that however an individual might think about the GOP's stand on specific moral issues such as family values, reproductive rights, social justice, economics, etc., this kind of thing should amply demonstrate that the GOP is not as a whole a more 'moral' party than the Democrats.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: I'd say that the GOP definitely deserves to be tarred with this. That's the business of politics, after all.
quote: These are not things that are decided solely on what the entire organization, as a whole, does. And they shouldn't be, either.
If I am interperting your comments correctly...because the GOP stands for things, whenever any member of the GOP commits a crime the whole party is guilty of the crime? As I posted earlier, if this had been a Democrat the coverage would be far far different.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think there were actually three distinct episodes on FOX of misappellation ("D" or "Dems" rather than Republican).
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hastert is "taking responsibility" for the Foley thing according to NPR. But he refuses to step down.
Hmm...responsibility without consequences...where have I heard that before? I seem to recall it being a problem of some kind.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:If I am interperting your comments correctly...because the GOP stands for things, whenever any member of the GOP commits a crime the whole party is guilty of the crime? As I posted earlier, if this had been a Democrat the coverage would be far far different.
DarkKnight,
Yes, because I said 'guilty'. I said 'tarred'. If I run a club which purports to be better than other clubs when it comes to moral values, and then one of my club members flagrantly violate a whole mess of morals that they were put in place to protect, my club gets a stained reputation. You claim membership-especially leadership-you're a frellin' representative of that club.
End of freaking story. I think it's hysterical that you're looking to a 20+year scandal to find some justification for your party in this. There is none. They get a seriously stained reputation for this, man. For their judgement if nothing else, putting a man like Foley in the position he held in the Congress.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: I think there were actually three distinct episodes on FOX of misappellation ("D" or "Dems" rather than Republican).
Yeah, and then when they re-aired the O'Reilly Factor later, rather than fixing the errors they simply removed the party affiliation entirely. As far as I'm aware they didn't acknowledge the mistake or issue a retraction/correction.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Darknight, first off, I'm not sure what you mean by "dealt with". Both Studds and Crane were reprimanded by Congress, both ran for re-election. Studds won, Crane lost. Probably he wasn't as skilled a politician as Studds. Certainly other Republicans have won re-election while under clouds of scandal.
Also, there are several facts left out or not highlighted in the short ABC story, DarkKnight.
1) Foley was Deputy Whip for the Republicans, making him the 4th highest-ranking House Republican, as well as being co-chair of the Caucus for Missing and Exploited Children.
While both Studds and Crane had their affairs in their first terms.
2)Studds' speech admitting the affair included this:
quote: Last week, in an extraordinary speech on the House floor, he confirmed unapologetically what had long been rumored—that he was a homosexual—and granted that he had made "a very serious error in judgment" in sleeping with the page.
Studds, who is unmarried, said only that he was wrong to have had sex with a congressional subordinate, no matter what the page's age or sex.
He may not have apologized, but he did admit he screwed up.
posted
I would actually have bolded your last clause in (1) there, Morbo. I was a couple of clips on YouTube of Foley from a couple of years ago, speaking in his capacity as co-chair. He goes on about the usual sort of "think of the children" stuff, but of course now he just comes off looking like an utter hypocrite.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:The problem isn't my position or politics. The problem is that no one seems capable of living up to them...
I submit that realism is an essential component of politics. In an ideal world, we'll all live in a communistic anarchy where everyone was nice to each other and shared everything.
It's precisely because not everyone lives up to -- or shares -- the same ideals that we HAVE laws: to identify ways to prevent these conflicts from causing harm.
If your ideals are so lofty that no one can live up to them, and your favorite political mechanism is such that, if people do not live up to your ideals, they can do great harm, your favorite mechanism is -- Q.E.D. -- harmful.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: I think you might be misinterperting what Gingrich was saying. I believe his point is that Republicans are handled in a much different way then Democrats are in these situations.
Hmmm, like when Rep. Don Sherwood (R-PA) actually has the chutzpah to run ads apologizing for an affair but denying "repeatedly choking" his mistress, should the voters accept his apology or vote him out? I'm confused here.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hate the power disparity. I hate that worldly power gives these people what they think is their right to treat the powerless among them like a dessert cart.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, but Scott, You're just one of the little people. A commoner. They're IMPORTANT. They're in GOVERNMENT. Why should they have to live by the same rules as you?
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Great letter. I am sure that, if you were to become a dictator, you would be one of the few who was incorruptible.
And it isn't too much to ask. All we have to do is pay attention and demand it. Being a citizen is a lot of work.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I have no idea what Q.E.D stands for, Tom.
"Quod erat demonstrandum" -- roughly, "and so it has been demonstrated." It's used at the end of a mathematical proof as a way of saying "I have proven what I set out to prove."
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I don't know, I'd categorize soliciting sex from minors in the workplace a pretty darn serious issue, on par with the first set you listed, Sterling.
I don't disagree on the seriousness of the crime. But unlike, say, the matter of Iraq, I don't feel there's a likelihood of a attitude of perceived acceptance of teenage solicitation becoming the norm on Capitol Hill. It may be that, in the name of preserving a popular incumbent Congressman, members of the GOP failed to act on evidence of wrongdoing, and that is certainly serious. But I'd like to see more of how things pan out before I rush to judge that.
quote:Why the hell would you blame the GOP for Enron?
posted
Sterling, please be more specific. The first link simply says that Enron donated to Republicans in an attempt to get out of trouble. So far, only Fastow has gotten any kind of break in the "trouble.
The second one makes some more specific allegations about the Gramms that date back to 1992, allegations that involve an executive branch post held by Gramm's wife.
The earnings for Enron were restated for 5 years in 2001 - more than 80% of that time for restated earnings was under the Clinton administration, which had regulatory control for 8 years. (Note: I'm not blaming Clinton here, either.)
Enron was a case of massive corporate fraud by private industry. It was prosecuted by the Bush administration. Nothing the Bush administration did contributed to this fraud.
All you've published is a lot of innuendo - Enron did something bad, Enron donated to the Republicans, therefore it's the Republicans fault.
Since only two Republicans are implicated in wrongdoing in either report, I'm interested to see how you arrived at the conclusion.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Foleys admission that he himself was molested as a younger man, plays towards my thougth that perhaps he hates that part of himself but he can't just free himself from it.
I think he deserves our sympathy and should be given help, not simply fired and thrown into a corner the rest of his days.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think his admission that he was molested, along with the alcohol thing, is a desperate attempt to change the label from "power-abusing pervert" to "victim and alcoholic."
I think he should be given help. I also think he should have the power he has been abusing taken away from him.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I hate the power disparity. I hate that worldly power gives these people what they think is their right to treat the powerless among them like a dessert cart.
Yes.
---
Edited to add:
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I think his admission that he was molested, along with the alcohol thing, is a desperate attempt to change the label from "power-abusing pervert" to "victim and alcoholic."
I think he should be given help. I also think he should have the power he has been abusing taken away from him.
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I think his admission that he was molested, along with the alcohol thing, is a desperate attempt to change the label from "power-abusing pervert" to "victim and alcoholic."
I think he should be given help. I also think he should have the power he has been abusing taken away from him.
I agree with how you think he should be treated, I wouldnt say it MUST be a DESPERATE measure. For all you know he could be greatly relieved that the lid on this part of his life has finally exploded off. I know that when my own personal demons were discovered by my parents I was half upset with myself for having sunken that low, half so happy that I couldnt hide it from them anymore.
I didnt recover immedietly, but that was a crucial first step, I'm glad I didnt spend as long as Foley has apparently dealing with it (or not dealing with it and just hiding it as may have been his case).
edit: "It" being my own personal demons, not pedophilia.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: All you've published is a lot of innuendo - Enron did something bad, Enron donated to the Republicans, therefore it's the Republicans fault.
Really? That Bush overturned Clinton's order to stop energy speculation in California?
Or that Republicans were the major sponsors and supporters of the legislation that allowed the speculation to occur? Governor John Rowland of Connecticut, Marc Racticot of Montana, Pete Wilson of California, among others? That they were heavily lobbied and financially bolstered by the interests that most benefitted from them doing so? By PACs and lobbying groups with strong GOP ties, such as Citizens For a Sound Economy?
None of that is innuendo. It's all quite verifiable.
I don't expect to convince you. And I've given the question as written as much time and more respect than it deserves.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
