# Oh, dear... Mr. Foley



## Jonathan Randall (Sep 29, 2006)

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/09/exclusive_the_s.html

Representative Mark Foley, who resigned over charges of sending sexually explicit messages and propositions to minors and improper contact via e-mail, internet and IM, may be prosecuted under legislation he himself wrote.


----------



## Don Roley (Sep 29, 2006)

Why don't congressmen use bookmarks?

Because they like their pages bent over. :uhyeah: 

If this "teenager" was 18....ok. If he was 16 or so, time to bring in the police. I just don't know how to go about it without somehow getting the victim indentified by the community he probably wants to keep it hidden from.


----------



## MA-Caver (Sep 30, 2006)

Well hypocracy isn't the way to do things if you want to get things done...


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Sep 30, 2006)

Don Roley said:


> Why don't congressmen use bookmarks?
> 
> Because they like their pages bent over. :uhyeah:
> 
> If this "teenager" was 18....ok. If he was 16 or so, time to bring in the police. I just don't know how to go about it without somehow getting the victim indentified by the community he probably wants to keep it hidden from.


 
Apparently he _was_ 16 and not the only one.

While I have NO sympathy for his behavior, I do feel sorrow for the fact that his self-destructive, and probably criminal, behavior has destroyed a career in public service that took decades to attain.

Tragedy. Self-caused, true, but still a tragedy. The thing that really gets me is that so many folks will now seek partisan political advantage over this. Sorry folks, but deviance crosses all political, economic and social lines.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 30, 2006)

Congressman Foley said:
			
		

> "It's vile," said Rep. Mark Foley, R-West Palm Beach. "It's more sad than anything else, to see someone with such potential throw it all down the drain because of a sexual addiction."


 
This statement was made in 1998, after the release of the Star Report.

What bothers me most in this unravelling report, is that the leadership of our Congress was aware of this information for months. They did not inform members of the Democratic Leadership. They took, apparently, no effort to remedy the situation with Congressman Foley.

There used to be an effective 'Ethics Committee' in the House. Congressman Delay had neutered that committee. I am a bit saddened that it had not been restored to effective graces after that Congressman's departure.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 2, 2006)

In my previous post, I indicated the Republican Leadership was aware of Representative Foley's "over-friendly" emails for "months".

This weekend, we learned that since 2001, Congressional Pages were being told to be wary of Congressman Foley. It seems that some knew more, earlier, rather than later.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=2514770&page=1


----------



## Don Roley (Oct 2, 2006)

To be exact, the type of thing people were being warned about was along this line.



> "It was a slight cautionary statement, you know, 'Don't get too wrapped up in him being too nice to you and all that kind of stuff.' You know, 'He's a nice guy, but he's a little bid odd,' and that sort of thing," Loraditch said.



Until quite recently, the most people seemed to know was that he was "a little bit odd" as the article says. The worst stuff has only come out since it hit the news.

I fear for the page that got the e-mails. They are really not much more than a guy kind of flirting. The parents asked that the case not be pursued for fear of their son's reputation and it looks like he did nothing to encourage the e-mails. But in the frenzy of an election in just a few weeks, I do not know what people will do to gain an advantage. I know guys that had to deal with being labled a homosexual in high school. One of them commited suicide.

I have no sympathy for Foley. I just am sick at the way people are using this for political gain. I am sure they will try to pull up examples of dirty tricks by the other side. But I keep seeing this as a danger to the 16 year old who did nothing.


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Oct 2, 2006)

Don Roley said:


> To be exact, the type of thing people were being warned about was along this line.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Yes, that's the thing. Folks are taking an issue of human fallibility (and probable criminality), the type that crosses all party lines, and trying to take partisan advantage from it.

The 16 year old is definitely the victim here. Apparently only the "less" explicit e-mails were released to the press and there is more than simply what we've seen.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 2, 2006)

From July 27, 2006



			
				President George W. Bush said:
			
		

> You know, having someone harm your child is one of the worst nightmares a parent could face.
> 
> Protecting our children is our solemn responsibility. It's what we must do. When a child's life or innocence is taken it is a terrible loss -- it's an act of unforgivable cruelty. Our society has a duty to protect our children from exploitation and danger.
> 
> ...


 
Representative Foley is on the right side of this photo, wearing the light blue tie.

When this photo was taken, the President was signing into law "The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006". At this time, the Republican Congressional leadership was aware of Representative Foley's communications with the page - or pages.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 2, 2006)

Mr. Foley has checked himself into alcohol rehab. Apparently, he is hoping to confuse the American public on the two topics of pedophilia and alcoholism.

In all of my years of drinking, I don't recall ever talking with young boys about sex. Nor did I ask young boys to send me pictures, nor to measure their penis, nor discuss whether or not they masturbated over the weekend.

I did many things when I was drinking. Many of which I am ashamed of today. But I am fairly certain that alcohol never caused me to take those actions.

It is something else, Mr. Foley. It is something else.


----------



## Kacey (Oct 2, 2006)

Another concern about this arose this morning; while sitting in the waiting room at the mechanic's, the TV was showing CNN, which was interviewing a former page about the amount of oversight the pages are given.  The young man stated that there is plenty of oversight in the dormitories and off-time, but not as much during the actual 'working' hours, because there has not been a need before, given the structure of the building and congressional meetings - he was concerned that, in the backlash, the entire page program might be scrapped.


----------



## crushing (Oct 2, 2006)

A more accurate term may be ephebophilia or maybe pederasty, but that is beside the point.  I think you are right that he is trying to confuse others about his inexusable behavior.  And, unlike other previous incidents in Washington, it doesn't look like he is going to get away with it.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 2, 2006)

Don Roley said:


> To be exact, the type of thing people were being warned about was along this line.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
As hard as it is going to be for the real victim in this situation, this case is, unfortunately, political.  If it turns out that the Republican leadership covered this up in order to retain a coveted seat and pass legislation, THAT is also inexcusable.  

And those involved NEED to be held accountable.  Imagine brushing something like this under the rug for political gain and claiming one is part of the moral majority?


----------



## Don Roley (Oct 2, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> If it turns out that the Republican leadership covered this up in order to retain a coveted seat and pass legislation, THAT is also inexcusable.



It would appear that it was common knowledge that he was 'a bit odd' but nice. The Republicans seem to be aware that he wrote a letter to one of the pages after Katrina inquiring after his health and asking for a picture. All the stories you hear about him asking someone in a chat room if he  made them hot came out after this one page was revealed.

It is not surprising that he would be exposed by the least damning case. Imagine if you were the other page that said he made you a little hot? The kid might be leaning toward that sort of sexual persuasion himself but would not come forward about it. But the kid that did nothing and has nothing to really hide was quite willing to talk to his parents, who talked to the republicans who talked to Foley and got him to stop in that case. 

But now that the lid is off, I would not be surprised if there was more cases that no one knew of came forward. You look at a lot of cases like this and you find a lot of people who keep silent until one person goes public. Until then, they are too ashamed to tell anyone.

And I do fear for the kids. It is hell to be known as a homosexual at that age. We know the page was displaced by Katrina, the senator he worked for... it probably won't take much for some of his friends to piece together the puzzle. I wish the media would take a bit more caution in revealing this sort of information. But it is such a juicy story and I doubt they give a damn if this kid takes a jump off of a building as a result. Heck, it would deepen the scandal and sell more papers if he did. :angry:


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 2, 2006)

Don Roley said:


> It would appear that it was common knowledge that he was 'a bit odd' but nice. The Republicans seem to be aware that he wrote a letter to one of the pages after Katrina inquiring after his health and asking for a picture. All the stories you hear about him asking someone in a chat room if he made them hot came out after this one page was revealed.
> 
> It is not surprising that he would be exposed by the least damning case. Imagine if you were the other page that said he made you a little hot? The kid might be leaning toward that sort of sexual persuasion himself but would not come forward about it. But the kid that did nothing and has nothing to really hide was quite willing to talk to his parents, who talked to the republicans who talked to Foley and got him to stop in that case.
> 
> ...


 
I don't want to jump to any conclusions.  We'll just have to see who knew what...and whether anyone believes various versions of what happened.  

I find the timing of this convenient for the democrats.  It wouldn't surprise me if the "leak" of this information was political.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 2, 2006)

All the reports I have seen, seem to indicate that the Democratic members of the House were completely in the dark about Mr. Foley's persuasion.

I understand that Mr. Foley offered to resign immediately if the ABC reporter would hold back on releasing the transcripts. A deal was placed on the table by Mr. Foley.

The transcripts for the Instant Message conversations are available online. It is easy enough to find them.


----------



## Don Roley (Oct 3, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> I find the timing of this convenient for the democrats.  It wouldn't surprise me if the "leak" of this information was political.



There has been a request for the justice department to look into the more serious case that happened three years ago. That is the one that only recently was leaked and the Republicans had no knowledge of. The one where Foley asks someone if he makes him hot.

If it is not a case of a reporter managing to find something in old records, it would mean that someone had knowledge of what he was doing and did nothing to stop him for three years in order to drop it just before he was facing an election.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 3, 2006)

This report from Howard Kurtz points to some interesting developments from the last five days.



> On Friday afternoon, a strategist for Rep. Mark Foley tried to cut a deal with ABC's Brian Ross.
> 
> The correspondent, who had dozens of instant messages that Foley sent to teenage House pages, had asked to interview the Florida Republican. Foley's former chief of staff said the congressman was quitting and that Ross could have that information exclusively if he agreed not to publish the raw, sexually explicit messages.
> 
> "I said we're not making any deals," Ross recalls. He says the Internet made the story possible, because on Thursday he posted a story on his ABC Web page, the Blotter, after obtaining one milder e-mail that Foley had sent a 16-year-old page, asking for a picture. Within two hours, former pages had e-mailed Ross and provided the salacious messages. The only question then, says Ross, was "whether this could be authenticated."


 
The 'strategist' for Mark Foley that asked ABC to bury the story was former Foley Chief of Staff - and current Chief of Staff for the NRCC leader Reynolds - Kirk Fordham. So a person who was, for ten years, in the position to know Mr. Foley's predilections and is now serving for the person in charge of getting Republicans re-elected to Congress, tried to bury or kill the story. 

Mr. Ross, the reporter from ABC, indicates from this story, that subsequent information was not 'leaked' at all from anyone. The additional information arrived in Ross's inbox from "former pages".

Lastly, as you watch Speaker Hastert's explainations over the past five days, they have evolved, and morphed in a variety of ways.  http://mediamatters.org/items/200610020010

There is no way that this ends well for the current congressional leadership. The spin machines are desperately trying to get someone's head on the chopping block to remove the story from the front pages. The spin machines have already tried to blame the victims in this case.

This incident seems to be a clear representation of Mr. Orwell's fiction; 'That the purpose of Power, is Power'.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 3, 2006)

Thanks, Michael, for the clarification.  It seems as if the worst expectations in this case may turn out to be true.  I wonder if a *real* investigation is going to ensue...


----------



## mrhnau (Oct 3, 2006)

A couple of things of interest in this....

first: what he did. Words. He text messages and sent some emails. While they are bad and what I consider vile, they are words. Shall we consider others who have done more than words? Do you perchance recall the Lewinski mess and purjury? How many of you recall Studds? Studds had sex with a 17 year old page, which is considered statutory rape! More than words (*ahem ahem* [sarcasm] proponents of the first admendment not piping up here? [/sarcasm] ). Left defended Clinton and Studds got a censure rather than jail time like most rapists. Studds even admitted what happened! He even turned his back when the censure was pronounced.

second: response. Foley admitted what he did. He resigned. He is in treatment for alcoholism. What did Clinton do? did he resign? What did Studds do? did he resign? Turned his back on congress.

Republicans are not perfect. Democrats are not either. However, I do see a difference in how they deal with problems. Everyone is an individual and should be responsible for the choices they make and the consequences that may/should follow.

I'm curious to see how much the Republicans knew... the coming months should be interesting.

One thing I was a bit upset about though... I was watching some of the news shows. They would rather focus on this mess than kids being killed in Pen. during the day... I guess some shows are more about politics, but come on... 

Now for some recent comments


> There is no way that this ends well for the current congressional leadership. The spin machines are desperately trying to get someone's head on the chopping block to remove the story from the front pages. The spin machines have already tried to blame the victims in this case.


Really? not from what I've heard. Most of the talking heads I've heard are already drooling about the political consequences. I've not heard much about the victim. Interesting term though. Victim. Is there a victim? That would assume a crime. I honestly am not familiar with email/texting laws. I assume it is illegal then? under what law? If so, think Foley will be prosecuted?




> I find the timing of this convenient for the democrats. It wouldn't surprise me if the "leak" of this information was political.


Absolutely. Wonder why its six weeks before the vote? Would the world have ended if it came out a year earlier or seven weeks later? of course its political. I'm wondering what other "bombshells" will be popping out on each side... just a few weeks left!




> Yes, that's the thing. Folks are taking an issue of human fallibility (and probable criminality), the type that crosses all party lines, and trying to take partisan advantage from it.


Absolutely. Then again, this happened with Clinton/Studds. However, they did not deal with the critique very well.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 3, 2006)

mrhnau ...

Monica Lewinsky was of legal age to give anyone she damn well pleased a blow job, assuming the other end of the equation was of legal age; which it was. 

Gerry Studds .... from what 20 years ago, 30 years ago? For the record, statutory rape laws in Massachusetts concern children under the age of 16. While I know very little of Mr. Studds. I understand the Democratic leadership of the House at the time launched a vigorous investigation into the matter. See Representative Crane (R-IL).

Foley resigned as part of plan to bury the story. The Republican Leadership ignored the warning signs, and attempted to keep the story secret from the Ethics Committee and the House Democrats.

As for Spin Machines - Mr. Drudge is spinning that the 16 and 17 year old "beasts" were leading Mr. Foley on. Mr. Limbaugh has accused the pages of 'entrapping' Mr. Foley. Mr. Gingrich said if the leadership of the house attempted an real measures to address the issue, they would be accused of 'Gay Bashing'. 


Cenk Uygur asks an important question ... what happened in San Diego?  EDIT - maybe it is not an important question, but it certainly an interesting question - END EDIT



> Maf54: I miss you lots since san diego.
> Teen: ya I cant wait til dc
> Maf54:
> Teen: did you pick a night for dinner
> ...



SECOND EDIT ...

Here are some more quotes about the Republicans trying to deal with, and get rid of this story as quickly as possible.



> Newsweek's Fineman: "This is a missile aimed straight at the heart of the Republican base, which is why Republicans in the White House and on the Hill are scrambling so quickly to try to get ahead of this fast moving story" ("Countdown," MSNBC, 10/2).
> 
> Ex-WH adviser David Gergen: "This story is going to trace itself up to just exactly who exactly in the leadership of the Republican Party knew what when. And that is going to keep the story alive for day after day, and keep the Republicans on the defensive, with the election just around the corner" ("AC 360," CNN, 10/2).
> 
> America's Cause Bay Buchanan: "This is a known homosexual who is writing e-mails to the home of a 16-year-old boy, asking for pictures. That's all you need to know. ... We need an investigation. Bring in the FBI. Stop this guy. Make certain that, if indeed he was the predator he could be, he was stopped that day. They failed that. You cannot spin this. And I don't know that I would call it a cover-up" ("Situation Room," CNN, 10/2).


----------



## mrhnau (Oct 3, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> mrhnau ...
> 
> Monica Lewinsky was of legal age to give anyone she damn well pleased a blow job, assuming the other end of the equation was of legal age; which it was.
> 
> Gerry Studds .... from what 20 years ago, 30 years ago? For the record, statutory rape laws in Massachusetts concern children under the age of 16. While I know very little of Mr. Studds. I understand the Democratic leadership of the House at the time launched a vigorous investigation into the matter. See Representative Crane (R-IL).


With regard to Monica, this has been discussed enough in the past. Lying to a grand jury is a crime, or did you not know that?

With regard to Crane, see this. He admitted what he did was wrong. Studds never admitted doing anything wrong at all. Claimed to have done it in Morrocco, so it was all fine and dandy. Go figure... If a Republican were to turn their back to the Senate, we would never hear the end of it... What I find just as disgusting is that he continued to be elected! From Mass.. Go figure...


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 3, 2006)

mrhnau said:


> With regard to Monica, this has been discussed enough in the past. Lying to a grand jury is a crime, or did you not know that?
> 
> With regard to Crane, see this. He admitted what he did was wrong. Studds never admitted doing anything wrong at all. Claimed to have done it in Morrocco, so it was all fine and dandy. Go figure... If a Republican were to turn their back to the Senate, we would never hear the end of it... What I find just as disgusting is that he continued to be elected! From Mass.. Go figure...


 
Who introduced us to the name 'Lewinsky' .... hmmm... oh, yeah, Matt Drudge. What does Mr. Drudge have to say about Mr. Foley? 



> they (the pages) were talking about how many times they'd masturbated, how many times they'd done it with their girlfriends this weekend...all these things and these innocent children. And this poor congressman sitting there typing, oh am I going to get any, you know?"


 
But, you know, you're right. This whole Foley thing is a distraction. He's gone, and Hastert will soon be gone. The sooner this all goes away, the better for the nation. 

Then, when our country puts the Taliban back into power in Afghanistan, you remember them, those who gave al Qaeda safe harbor, our government will not just be betraying minor children attempting to learn about and serve our government. We will be betraying the families and memories of the 2950 dead from the world trade center, and the 2720 service members who have died in Iraq. 

Let's give the keys to the terrorists back. --- See Senate Majority Leader Frist. 


Oh, yeah, and let's not get distracted from the upcoming war in Iran. Some 20,000 additional sailors have been deployed to the Middle east in the Carrier Battle group Eisenhower. Who knew that the Coast Guard was going to protect the Coasts in the middle east. 


Yeah, there are so many more things to look at, rather than Foley.


----------



## Ping898 (Oct 3, 2006)

> WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. - Disgraced former Rep. Mark Foley said through his lawyer Tuesday that he was sexually abused by a clergyman as a teenager, but accepts full responsibility for sending salacious computer messages to teenage male pages.
> 
> Attorney David Roth said Foley was molested between ages 13 and 15. He declined to identify the clergyman or the church, but Foley is Roman Catholic.
> 
> He also acknowledged for the first time that the former congressman is gay, saying the disclosure was part of his client's "recovery."


 
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061004...n6GbToC;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

I don't know if this is true or not but seems like an easy or convenient out to me....


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Oct 3, 2006)

mrhnau said:


> A couple of things of interest in this....
> 
> first: what he did. Words. He text messages and sent some emails. While they are bad and what I consider vile, they are words. Shall we consider others who have done more than words? Do you perchance recall the Lewinski mess and purjury? How many of you recall Studds? Studds had sex with a 17 year old page, which is considered statutory rape! More than words (*ahem ahem* [sarcasm] proponents of the first admendment not piping up here? [/sarcasm] ). Left defended Clinton and Studds got a censure rather than jail time like most rapists. Studds even admitted what happened! He even turned his back when the censure was pronounced.
> 
> ...


 
1. First, as has been pointed out, Monica Lewinsky was _NOT _a minor.
2. The texts and e-mails included a SOLICITATION for a meeting with a 16 year old boy - not simply kinky messages.
3. What other people do, or have done, _is immaterial to Mr. Foley's responsibility for HIS actions._
4. Foley resigned because they had him dead to rights. Had he had even a slim possibility of bluffing his way out of this one, he would have taken it - as he did a year ago when this first surfaced.
5. True, _the timing is SUSP_ECT, and I heavily dislike the idea of taking partisan political advantage over this. If members of the Republican House Leadership helped cover Foley, to the detriment of minors, than they should go down too - but NOT because they are Republicans. I have no doubt that more than a couple of politicians from BOTH parties are quaking in their boots right now over the possibility of _their _eventual unmasking as sexual predators as well.

Finally, Limbaugh is an apologist for the Republican party, nothing more. His credibility here is zero, IMO, as would be the credibility of Left Wing idealogue and Democratic Apologist Randi Rhode's opinion on the Clinton scandal.


----------



## Don Roley (Oct 4, 2006)

Kacey said:


> Another concern about this arose this morning; while sitting in the waiting room at the mechanic's, the TV was showing CNN, which was interviewing a former page about the amount of oversight the pages are given.  The young man stated that there is plenty of oversight in the dormitories and off-time, but not as much during the actual 'working' hours, because there has not been a need before, given the structure of the building and congressional meetings - he was concerned that, in the backlash, the entire page program might be scrapped.



There is little concern for that. In 1983 there was a scandal that involved congressmen who actually had sex with underage pages.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Page_sex_scandal



> The 1983 Congressional page sex scandal was a political scandal in the United States involving members of the United States House of Representatives.
> On July 14, 1983 the House Ethics Committee concluded that Rep. Dan Crane (R-Ill.) and Rep. Gerry Studds (D-Mass.) had engaged in sexual relationships with minors, specifically 17-year-old congressional pages. In Crane's case, it was a 1980 relationship with a female page and in Studds's case, it was a 1973 relationship with a male page. Both representatives immediately pleaded guilty to the charges and the committee decided to simply reprimand the two.
> However, Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) demanded their expulsion. On July 20, 1983, the House voted for censure, the first time that censure had been imposed for sexual misconduct. Crane, who subsequently apologized for his transgression, lost his bid for reelection in 1984.
> Studds, however, stood by the facts of the case and refused to apologize for his behavior, and even turned his back and ignored the censure being read to him. He called a press conference with the former page, in which both stated that the young man, who was 17, consented. Studds had taken the adolescent to Morocco to engage in sexual activity, and therefore did not break any U.S. laws in what he called a "private relationship."[1] He continued to be reelected until his retirement in 1996.[2]



You might note that the guy that slept with the 17 year old boy served in the house and was supported by his fellow party members until he retired about ten years ago. People really did not care about his sleeping with a minor and the page program was never in danger of being done away with. The ethics commitee really only wanted to reprimand them for sleeping with underage pages and they were not even thrown out after Gringrich raised hell. That of course was when the folks using this scandal as a political football were in charge of both the house and the senate.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 4, 2006)

The whole lot needs to be thrown out and term limits need to installed for every elected member of the government.  Mr. Foley's actions and the actions of the Republicans in covering his butt, as terrible as they seem, are just one side of this corrupt coin.


----------



## mrhnau (Oct 4, 2006)

Jonathan Randall said:


> 1. First, as has been pointed out, Monica Lewinsky was _NOT _a minor.
> 2. The texts and e-mails included a SOLICITATION for a meeting with a 16 year old boy - not simply kinky messages.
> 3. What other people do, or have done, _is immaterial to Mr. Foley's responsibility for HIS actions._
> 4. Foley resigned because they had him dead to rights. Had he had even a slim possibility of bluffing his way out of this one, he would have taken it - as he did a year ago when this first surfaced.
> ...



1) True, she was not a minor. however, she was a subordinate. Clinton also did clearly break the law in his attempted coverup (purjury). I don't think the issue of Clinton was EVER about sex w/ a minor. If we do have a coverup by the Republicans, we have a clear analogy.

2) I've asked for a clarification of that is illegal. We may not like it, but I honestly don't know if thats illegal. Clarification of the laws broken please? If soliciation of a 16 year old is illegal in DC, then clearly laws were broken. If so, I hope he is prosecuted.

3) Ummm... sort of. He is responsible for his own actions, but I'm asking for consistency in dealing with the investigation. If he is treated differently than other precedents, then we have a problem. If he is compared to Studds/Crane, what he did was not quite as bad. If he is treated differently because he is a Republican and its election time, then I have a serious issue. Clearly hs is responsible for himself, and has taken actions in accordance.

4) Quite possibly. He did the right thing in resigning.

5) Note, in point 4, you comment on it coming out a year ago. Wonder why it did not come out then? Also wonder why its six weeks before, when there is no time for an exhaustive investigation before the election? Leaves doubt in the eyes of the voters. Think a calculation of the investigation time was not considered? I've heard some rumors that other pages are calling in with comments on other representatives. I bet there are a decent amount of them really scared. And I bet all of them are not Republicans.

This was only political. If they cared "for the children" here and wanted to protect the pages, then it should have come out a year ago, or at least an investigation of sorts... 

6) Limbaugh. You don't like Limbaugh, so you consider him irrelevant. So, I get to pick liberals who are irrelevant too, right? I can pick and choose those I want to ignore? Even if they speak the truth? (at least from their perspective that is) I'll listen once in a while. I don't always agree with his commentary, but he does have a penchant for bringing up appropriate precedents and history. That aspect of him I enjoy. I've not heard mention of Studds anywhere else (at least before his comments).


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 4, 2006)

Don Roley said:


> You might note that the guy that slept with the 17 year old boy served in the house and was supported by his fellow party members until he retired about ten years ago. People really did not care about his sleeping with a minor and the page program was never in danger of being done away with. The ethics commitee really only wanted to reprimand them for sleeping with underage pages and they were not even thrown out after Gringrich raised hell. That of course was when the folks using this scandal as a political football were in charge of both the house and the senate.


 
I heard a wonderful discussion with a staff member from Thomas P. O'Neil the other day on Mike Barnicle's program. They discussed all of the actions taken by Speaker O'Neil when the first hint of impropriety arose with Mr. Studds. It was this investigation, started at the insistance of the Speaker of the House from the same party as Mr. Studds, that brought to light Mr. Crane's daliances. 

Both representatives you mention were censured on the floor of the House of Representatives. To state that he was 'supported' by his fellow party members seems to ignore this fact. He certainly was re-elected by his constituents.

Have you seen all the reports that Mr. Foley was a Democrat? Seems Fox News keeps putting (D-FL) next to his name. What possibly could bring that about? Some of the other articles I've scanned over the past couple of days also refer to this Republican as a Democrat.

Certainly, the repeated references to Mr. Studds 1973 affair is an attempt to use the 'See the other side does it too' argument so prevelent in say, the Abramoff case.  Of course, it is true concerning Mr. Studds, where it is not true concerning Mr. Abramoff.


----------



## mrhnau (Oct 4, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> The whole lot needs to be thrown out and term limits need to installed for every elected member of the government.  Mr. Foley's actions and the actions of the Republicans in covering his butt, as terrible as they seem, are just one side of this corrupt coin.



Corruption is everywhere. Both sides. As long as these organizations are made up of individuals with the potential to entertain corruption, its not going to be fixed. Man is inherently fallible.

I'm torn on term limits... Part of me thinks it would be smart. I doubt it will pass, because those that would be effected would be the ones voting on it. I doubt they are going to be limiting their own opportunities.

What type of duration would you impose? How about the Supreme Court? Different for each house? How about someone that gets into both the Senate and House?


----------



## Don Roley (Oct 4, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> Both representatives you mention were censured on the floor of the House of Representatives. To state that he was 'supported' by his fellow party members seems to ignore this fact. He certainly was re-elected by his constituents.



Of course, in those days congressmen were not expected to drop out if they were found to be sleeping with underage pages. You look at the way that Foley was hounded by his own party and had to drop out and the way that Studds was on the Democratic ticket until he retired and you can't help but think that maybe we are learning not to tolerate certain things. You can see Hasart blast Foley in his press conferences over his flirting and comments by e-mail. Until Gingrich raised hell, the democratically controlled ethics commitee merely wanted to reprimand the guilty parties who actually had sex with underage pages.

As the article states,



> Studds, however, stood by the facts of the case and refused to apologize for his behavior, and even turned his back and ignored the censure being read to him. He called a press conference with the former page, in which both stated that the young man, who was 17, consented. Studds had taken the adolescent to Morocco to engage in sexual activity, and therefore did not break any U.S. laws in what he called a "private relationship."[1] He continued to be reelected until his retirement in 1996.[2]



After all, the scandal now is whether the Republicans should have done more when they heard that one of their members had requested a photo from a former page. There is nothing overtly sexual about that and the parents requested that nothing happen to protect their kid. And yet the Republicans are being persecuted for not doing more. But 23 years ago, two conrgressmen who actually slept with underage kids were allowed to retain their position and run again for congress. One was pretty much let loose by his party and lost the next election. But every Democrat who stayed in the party while Studds continued to serve seems rather hypocritical in attacking the republicans for not acting on a request for a picture.

And it seems that the instant messages are not as public as some of us have thought. Some news services are saying they can't confirm aspects of the story. So aside from the intial leak of the most recent case, we really do not know if someone knew about the story for three years and only chose to reveal it when it would do the most damage.

Upnorthkyosa is right in that we need term limits in the senate and house. The amount of corruption that senators like Kennedy and Byrd as well as Foley is only possible due to the atmosphere of a nobility class that they seem to generate after decades of serving.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 4, 2006)

Democratically controlled ethics committee?

That's an awful lot like Fox News ticker ... "Mark Foley (D-FL)" ... isn't it? ---- see photo below

The ethics committee in the House of Representatives is the one committee in which the majority party does not hold majority on the committee. The committee is equally divided between the two parties. 

Rules put in place in this session of Congress have seriously neutered the effectiveness of the House Ethics committee. The cynic would say that Majority Leader Delay had those new rules put in place as a measure of self-protection.

Oh, and Mr. Foley was not 'hounded' by anyone. He resigned at the first hint this story was going to break. 



For years the Republican Party has co-opted the term 'Family Values', using it to denigrate the opposition; how dare to gay men think they are a family, how dare a woman choose to be a single mother. The Republicans have shown little tolerance for the vast variety of 'families' that make up the universe. To complain that the Democrats recognize diversity, and allow gay men to serve openly in congress and return a gay man to office, while the Republicans attempt to distance themselves from a fornicator, is disingenuous. The page with which Mr. Studds had an affair, as I understand it, stood next to Mr. Studds and announced the relationship was consensual. I guess that goes a long way with the good voters in Massachusetts. 

The Republican voters in Illinois *chose* not to return Congressman Crane to office. 

Oh, and don't forget Congressman Lukens (R-OH), if you're going to talk about minor sex scandals.


Perhaps the question is ..... would you allow your 15 year old child to serve as a page in the House?


----------



## Don Roley (Oct 4, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> To complain that the Democrats recognize diversity, and allow gay men to serve openly in congress and return a gay man to office, while the Republicans attempt to distance themselves from a fornicator, is disingenuous. The page with which Mr. Studds had an affair, as I understand it, stood next to Mr. Studds and announced the relationship was consensual.



It is not that the people in question are gay, but rather that they slept with underage pages. It does not matter if the underage pages thought the sex was consensual. We as a people do not think that underage children can make that decision.

Oh, and Foley never seems to have been able to fornicate as you say. He made some pretty nasty e-mails, but no one has said that he actually touched a page as of yet.

And when the democrats controlled the congress, two people that had slept with underage pages were not the subject of speeches like Hasert made about Foley IIRC. Studds served for 13 years before he retired.

I do not think anyone in that party who was there when he ran again for election has much to stand on while the accuse the republicans for not doing enough about a non- sexual request for a photo.


----------



## crushing (Oct 4, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> *All the reports I have seen, seem to indicate that the Democratic members of the House were completely in the dark about Mr. Foley's persuasion.*
> 
> I understand that Mr. Foley offered to resign immediately if the ABC reporter would hold back on releasing the transcripts. A deal was placed on the table by Mr. Foley.
> 
> The transcripts for the Instant Message conversations are available online. It is easy enough to find them.


 

Wasn't Foley's 'persuasion' the "dirty little secret" that Foley's "gay-baiting" challenger was talking about?  I find it difficult to believe that Foley's opponent would know more about Foley than the people he works with every day.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/9/4/232813/9458


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 4, 2006)

crushing said:


> Wasn't Foley's 'persuasion' the "dirty little secret" that Foley's "gay-baiting" challenger was talking about? I find it difficult to believe that Foley's opponent would know more about Foley than the people he works with every day.
> 
> http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/9/4/232813/9458


 
'persuasion' was a bad word choice on my part, wasn't it. The term often refers to the orientation of a person, in common usage, doesn't it. 

What I think I was driving at, was his predilection for young men.

I think many members in the House knew he was gay. One of the tabloids that outs people said that Congressman Frank threatened to out Mr. Foley a couple of years ago. So, that Foley was gay was known by some. 

Now, let me say this. There is nothing wrong with Mr. Foley liking young men. I like young women. Sure, I'm a married old man, but the young tend to be naturally stunning, don't you think? But, I don't instant message with my daughters friends. I don't discuss masturbation techniques with them. I don't discuss how often they have sex. I don't offer to buy them alcohol or dinner. I don't ask them to measure themselves. 

So, while I sometimes, in my private thoughts, behave in a way some might take offense at ... it occurs in my private thoughts. Mr. Foley was taking action on his thoughts. 

Is that wrong ? ... well, in our society it is considered it wrong. Although, I think most 16 years olds having sex with other 16 year olds is not too far out of bounds. When we look at 50 years old and 16 years old, then things get a little different, don't they? 

Mr. Foley resigned. Mr. Foley, through his spokesperson, attempted to conceal the ABC news report. Apparently, he felt as if something wasn't right with his actions. 

The House Republican leadership did not share information with the Democratic Leadership. The Republican Leadership apparently attempted to keep this hidden. Could they have dealt with it in a more open manner that wouldn't have created this controversy? Maybe. You know, hindsight and all. 

But now, the cover-up : or appearance of cover-up : just kinda stinks. Mr. Hastert can't seem to get his information straight. First he never knew, then he couldn't remember, then he told Foley to resign, then he didn't tell Foley to resign.

It's kind of fun to watch the Republicans eat their young here. Democrats do that all the time. This Republican Party has rarely been out of goose-step with each other.


----------



## crushing (Oct 4, 2006)

Michael,

Thank you for the clarificaion on your use of the word 'persuasion'.

I don't disagree with most of what you said, well except the last line.  I think it has been covered in this thread that Democrats involved in sex scandals were returned to office while Republican voters didn't return their respective officials to office.

Both parties have similar motivations for power and will 'eat their young' when they feel it will help their party, but both would much rather eat the young of the other party.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 4, 2006)

As far as term limits go, I would limit senators to two terms and representatives to 4.  As far as the supreme court goes, I'm torn on this one.  I can see why lifetime appointments make sense, but I think we have also seen how this becomes a barrier for democratic change.

The bottom line is that we are dealing with a corrupt system where people of power an influence start to think they are above the law.   

Anyway, another aspect of all of this is all of the negative press that homosexuals are getting.  I was listening to NPR today and some top GOP activists were spouting the age old stereotypes..."Gays are sex-crazed" and "Everyone knows that all queers want to have sex with little boys."

I kid you not, those were exact quotes...and it made me want to vomit in my trash bin.  

This scandal is giving all sorts of little twisted bullets to bigots out there who are looking for any reason to hate.  And it seems as if the GOP leadership is doing their best to point out that Mr. Foley is an alcoholic HOMOSEXUAL.  The MSM isn't helping at all.  I can't even begin to count the times they have associated the words HOMOSEXUAL and PEDOPHILE.  

In the end, I think this may be one of the worst things to come out this.  The fight against these stereotypes may have been set back years.


----------



## CoryKS (Oct 4, 2006)

All I know is, he better not have actually touched one of them.  He won't be avoiding jail on grounds of mitigating hotness like that teacher did, that's for sure.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Oct 4, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> That's an awful lot like Fox News ticker ... "Mark Foley (D-FL)" ... isn't it? ---- see photo below




Ah, yes.  Fox News...where Bill O'Reilly stated on two separate occasions that American soldiers shot captured SS troops at the Malmedy massacre.  

'Twas the Germans who actually shot captured Americans.  But Bill isn't much for accuracy, it seems.  Neither is Fox.

Making Foley out to be a Democrat?  SURELY it wasn't intentional!




Regards,


Steve


----------



## Don Roley (Oct 5, 2006)

Things just get more disgusting as this goes on.

There is a type of program here in Japan called a "wide show." It is a morning news cast where they report the news and then sit around and talk about it with several experts and celebrities. This morning's one wanted to make me vomit.

As has been pointed out, there have been rumors for years that Foley was considered a bit odd, but nice. A lot of people are saying that this alone should have justified an investigation. Of course, with no evidence and no one coming forward, that is just not a reasonable statement.

There are a hell of a lot of rumors about just about every member of congress. Some of them probably are true. But many are just stories and some of them probably were started by people trying to damage someone.

If you act on them, or even report on them in the American press you would open yourself up to some major lawsuits. Without proof in hand, you can't do or report much. Even when you are dealing with someone as notorious as Ted Kennedy, you just can't do anything or say anything in public without someone coming forward to back up the accusations. And the first person to come forward will probably be attacked as we saw during the Clinton scandals.

But the wide shows in Japan are a bit less worried about lawsuits from American lawmakers.

The stories I heard would gag a maggot. The entire congress, from both parties, just seem to think that they can get away with anything as long as their staff keeps things quiet. Considering the fact that someone was caught of sleeping with a page younger than the age of consent and managed to serve until he retired, I guess they don't have to worry.

If you think the problems with male pages are bad, some of the stories ex female pages tell off the record would have you crouched beside me as we vomit together. :barf:  I did not catch many of the names and would feel nervous about posting them here anyways.  But one thing that you can do is observe a particular act with your own eyes.

Japan is a bigger trading partner and a more important ally than most third world nations. Yet when the 1995 Kobe earthquake hit, there really was not a lot of congressmen who showed up to survey the damage done. Keep that in mind as you see what happens whenever a place like Belize has some sort of natural disaster. Not only that, but the various trade delegations and such seem to go to third world nations and not those like Japan. What do these nations seem to have in common? They all are notorious for underage prostitution. :angry: 

It happened under democrats, and this type of abuse of power is still going on. It is a matter of people who think that because they give their life in service to America that they deserve a little slack when it comes to legal and moral issues. That and that they think that the laws they write do not apply to them.

And yeah, you can't do anything based on rumors and stories. You can't act against someone, you can't even investigate someone if it is one of those friend of a friend type of things. Unless some of the staff that set these type of thing up and clean up afterwards comes forward, the slime balls are going to keep at it. And those that know are probably not eager to go through the public flogging that we saw the women involved in the Clinton scandal went through. That type of behavior is just part and parcel of the political situation in Washington and it makes me sick.


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Oct 5, 2006)

Don Roley said:


> The stories I heard would gag a maggot. The entire congress, from both parties, just seem to think that they can get away with anything as long as their staff keeps things quiet. Considering the fact that someone was caught of sleeping with a page younger than the age of consent and managed to serve until he retired, I guess they don't have to worry.
> 
> Japan is a bigger trading partner and a more important ally than most third world nations. Yet when the 1995 Kobe earthquake hit, there really was not a lot of congressmen who showed up to survey the damage done. Keep that in mind as you see what happens whenever a place like Belize has some sort of natural disaster. Not only that, but the various trade delegations and such seem to go to third world nations and not those like Japan. What do these nations seem to have in common? They all are notorious for underage prostitution. :angry:
> 
> ...


 
Amen!

That's why I said in the beginning that this was NOT a Democrat or Republican issue, rather a human one. Both parties in Congress have skeletons in their closets and NEITHER has a monopoloy on either good or evil. Let's face it, Democratic Congressman and women would probably try to cover for one of their own as quickly as Republican - and vice versus.

Much of this "outrage" is simply posturing.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 5, 2006)

One can find it very amazing, that in a thread about Mark Foley, a Republican Congressman being disgraced from office for his behavior with minors, a great big post can take place talking about how disgusting Congress is that mention by name the Senior Senator from Massachusetts, the immediate past President, and child prostitution.

Not a single verifiable accusation. Just innuendos and smears. 

Much Like Fox News labelling Mr. Foley a Democrat, this is a mindless tactic of ideological Republicans to make the ascertion "The other guy does it to".

Amazing, indeed. Except, so far, it has no bearing on the facts in evidence.

Character Assassination, I think it is called.


----------



## mrhnau (Oct 5, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> Character Assassination, I think it is called.



And Democrats know absolutely NOTHING about that one.


----------



## Don Roley (Oct 5, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> Much Like Fox News labelling Mr. Foley a Democrat



You seem to be trying to get as much as possible out of a mistake by a technician. I really do not think that anyone could expect to get people to believe that Foley was a democrat.

The amount of slime that goes on in the house and senate is not a secret. It goes into both parties and has existed for a long, long time. I don't think anything would get you to change your tune since you are quite eager to attack Foley for exchanging e-mails with someone under 18, but when a democrat actually sleeps with someone we think is too young to make decisions for themselves, you label it as such...



> To complain that the Democrats recognize diversity, and allow gay men to serve openly in congress and return a gay man to office,



That still blows my mind. Foley is a fornicator for exchanging e-mails but the guy who slept with someone underage is not given any hell.

I know that kids at that age are very vulnerable and are easily manipulated. They think, even years after, that what they did was their own choice. But they are used by the most loathsome of creatures. The age of consent is there because we do not think they have the abilities to make an informed decision to consent or not.

I am very disturbed with this whole thing. People are so eager to promote a party that they are trying to make it sound like changing leadership will return the congress to a golden age. But the problems are deep and have been around for a long time. If we merely think we can change things by electing democrats or getting another speaker, then people will cluck and pat themselves on the back over how they dealt with the issue and let these perverts continue on with what they are doing.

Much of this "outrage" is merely posturing.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 7, 2006)

Don Roley said:


> You seem to be trying to get as much as possible out of a mistake by a technician. I really do not think that anyone could expect to get people to believe that Foley was a democrat.


 
Now, that really is funny.

Bill O'Reilly allowing a mistake on his program. This is the guy who said the American Military killed surrendering Nazi's at Malmady ... He got it exactly backward and wrong ... and still hasn't corrected the record.

And that you believe that it is a 'possible milstake' .... or seem willing to give a pass on this is .... well, just, amazing .... 

Thanks, I needed a good laugh.


----------



## Don Roley (Oct 7, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> Now, that really is funny.
> 
> Bill O'Reilly allowing a mistake on his program.



The technicians that run the things like this do tend to make mistakes. I remember one case on CNN where the subtitle under the screen listed the shuttle as going the speed of light. :uhyeah: 

Now if they _talked_ about Foley being a member of the Democratic party, and tried to steer the conversation into the impact on the DNC, then you might have a point.

But this was a simple case of someone asleep at the switch. Happens sometimes. And it also happens that people try to make little mistakes like this sound a lot more sinister than they really are for political gain.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 8, 2006)

Don Roley said:


> The technicians that run the things like this do tend to make mistakes. I remember one case on CNN where the subtitle under the screen listed the shuttle as going the speed of light.
> Now if they _talked_ about Foley being a member of the Democratic party, and tried to steer the conversation into the impact on the DNC, then you might have a point.
> 
> But this was a simple case of someone asleep at the switch. Happens sometimes. And it also happens that people try to make little mistakes like this sound a lot more sinister than they really are for political gain.


 

Journalistic Integrity would demand that an onscreen correction be issued for such a mistake. 

From Fox - No such thing is forthcoming. And you continue to excuse the mistake.

If you were to doubt that real journalists would correct their errors, take a quick look at the Associated Press. They made a similiar error. They immediately issued a correction.

Apparently, the Associated Press retains some integrity. Fox News, not so much.


----------



## Don Roley (Oct 8, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> Journalistic Integrity would demand that an onscreen correction be issued for such a mistake.
> 
> From Fox - No such thing is forthcoming.



I don't know if they did. I do not know if you would know about it if they did or would report it either. And I never heard of the CNN typo I mentioned being corrected. 

I am amazed that you think that Fox would believe they could convince people that Foley was a democrat in all this uproar. It is like trying to convince people that Bush is Russian. The idea that some tecnician made a typo is far more believable. But I guess if someone is eager to attack Fox they would jump on any chance they could.

Take a look at the Fox news web site at foxnews.com. Does it look like they are trying to fool people into thinking Foley was a democrat? And since the only source that seems to have caught this is Bradblog.com, are we even really sure that it is not a case of someone with a photoshop program?


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 8, 2006)

Don Roley said:


> I don't know if they did. I do not know if you would know about it if they did or would report it either. And I never heard of the CNN typo I mentioned being corrected.
> 
> I am amazed that you think that Fox would believe they could convince people that Foley was a democrat in all this uproar. It is like trying to convince people that Bush is Russian. The idea that some tecnician made a typo is far more believable. But I guess if someone is eager to attack Fox they would jump on any chance they could.
> 
> Take a look at the Fox news web site at foxnews.com. Does it look like they are trying to fool people into thinking Foley was a democrat? And since the only source that seems to have caught this is Bradblog.com, are we even really sure that it is not a case of someone with a photoshop program?


 
Are you accusing me of lying? Why does that not surprise me? 

http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003221594



			
				Editor & Publisher said:
			
		

> "*Once it came to our attention, we removed the incorrect chyron immediately,*" said David Tabacoff, executive producer of the Fox News Channel show hosted by Bill O'Reilly, who also does a newspaper column distributed by Creators Syndicate. "*We didn't run a correction per se.*"
> 
> Foley was mislabeled on O'Reilly's Tuesday show. When the program was rebroadcast, the Democrat label was scrubbed but not replaced with a Republican one.
> 
> ...


----------



## Lisa (Oct 8, 2006)

Moderator Note:

Please keep the conversation polite an respectful.  Please use the ignore feature located in each members profile to "ignore" those whom you do not wish to read the opinions of.

Lisa Deneka
MartialTalk Super Moderator


----------



## Don Roley (Oct 8, 2006)

So I guess that all the screaming that is going on in the internet about this being a deliberate attempt to label Foley a democrat is a modern day witch hunt. It was a mistake and not a conspiracy.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 8, 2006)

Don Roley said:


> So I guess that all the screaming that is going on in the internet about this being a deliberate attempt to label Foley a democrat is a modern day witch hunt. It was a mistake and not a conspiracy.


 
So, this is the extent of your apology for accusing me of falsehoods? 

The photo remains in circulation, and remains uncorrected, no photo showing (R-FL) out there .... some mistake.


----------



## Don Roley (Oct 8, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> So, this is the extent of your apology for accusing me of falsehoods?



I never accused you of lying. Re-read what I wrote. Best listen to the moderator and let the matter drop.



michaeledward said:


> The photo remains in circulation, and remains uncorrected, no photo showing (R-FL) out there .... some mistake.



Not on anything run by Fox. They made a mistake. They even admitted it on a link you yourself provided. The fact that others like Bradblog still have the original image up seems a really strange thing to try to pin on Foxnews.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 9, 2006)

This in from Fox News ... from the 'Beltway Boys' program.

Lincoln Chaffee is not a (D)
Sheldon Whitehouse is not an (R)


----------



## Don Roley (Oct 9, 2006)

What does that have to do with Foley?

Obviously some technician has made another mistake and they should look into it. This seems like a pretty silly attempt to make a conspiracy out of some technical goofs. Might as well be talking about Gore's trying to take credit for the internet.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 12, 2006)

Oh, this is priceless ... 

http://ni9e.com/foley/foleybot.html

Take a look.


----------

