<p>Foley To Resign Over Sexually Explicit Messages to Minors</p>
<p><a href=“http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/09/foley_resigns_o.html[/url]”>http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/09/foley_resigns_o.html</a></p>
<p>I read the emails…it is interesting to see how subtle and slippery people that are interested in minors approach someone…</p>
<p>A nice family guy…uh huuh…</p>
<p>If my kid got emails that were creepy, I would be very angry, and at least the page knew it was “off” and did something</p>
<p>Another politician who can’t come to grips with his identity. But that’s not the problem. The problem is that the victim is a minor.</p>
<p>Where’s the sexually explicit part? Which part of which email exactly is creepy?</p>
<p>More on Foley: (from Wikipedia)</p>
<p>Pornography and sexual offenses</p>
<p>Foley has been one of the foremost critics in the House of child pornography. Foley introduced a bill in 2002 to outlaw websites featuring controversial images of nude preteen children, saying that “these websites are nothing more than a fix for pedophiles.” In June 2003 he wrote letters to the governor and attorney general of Florida, asking them to review the legality of a program for teenagers of a Lake Como nudist resort in Land O’Lakes, Florida.</p>
<p>Foley’s legislation to change federal sex offender laws was supported by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, America’s Most Wanted host John Walsh, and a number of victims’ rights groups. President George W. Bush signed it into law as part of the Adam Walsh Child Safety and Protection Act of 2006.</p>
<p>Foley also succeeded in getting a law passed that allows volunteer youth-serving organizations like the Boy Scouts of America and Boys and Girls Clubs to have access to FBI fingerprint background checks to help protect children</p>
<p>Social issues</p>
<p>Foley’s stances on many social issues, such as abortion and gay rights, differ from his party’s. A Roman Catholic, Foley is pro-choice (a member of The Republican Majority For Choice) but has advocated alternatives such as adoption and abstinence.</p>
<p>This part is even more interesting - the day before, when it was all a “smear campaign”: <a href=“http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/09/sixteenyearold_.html[/url]”>http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/09/sixteenyearold_.html</a></p>
<p>I particularly like the vitriol from the republicans attacking the reporter, the kid, democrats, etc. etc. which follows the column… Examples:
Sound familiar, anyone?</p>
<p>he quit…</p>
<p>a grown man asking a 16 year boy he barely knows how old he is, what he wants for his birthday, and to send him a picture…</p>
<p>let me see, if someone 40-50 year old guy asked that of a teen girl, sorry, creepy</p>
<p>latetoschool- it doesn;t start out with “lets have sex”, it starts out with, stuff like he said…and if it was totally innocent, why quit?</p>
<p>“Hours earlier, ABC News had read excerpts of instant messages provided by former male pages who said the congressman, under the AOL Instant Messenger screen name Maf54, made repeated references to sexual organs and acts.”</p>
<p>from abc</p>
<p>LTS: ABC had obtained “excerpts of instant messages provided by former pages who said the congressman, under the AOL Instant Messenger screen name Maf54, made repeated references to sexual organs and acts.”</p>
<p>Stick a fork in it, he’s done.</p>
<p>I note that many Bush supporters form up hollow square, eyes front, doing the best to ignore the stench coming from behind them. In this case, it’s only a penny-ante pedophile, not wrecking the country via Iraq. But still.</p>
<p>x-posted.</p>
<p>It will be interesting to see if that turns out to be true…</p>
<p>TheDad, I haven’t offered any argument. All I’ve done so far is post two questions…which haven’t been answered, and, one benign comment.</p>
<p>what turns out to be true…we know he emailed at least one page</p>
<p>my D interned at an office this summer, if a person, an older male, she didn’t even intern with asked for her picture, etc., it is inappropriate at best, and especially so from a person who has the record of Foley, who should know better, as it was a mission in his life to protect children</p>
<p>let me see what, as a woman and a mother I found creepy;</p>
<p>I biked 25 miles ( showing he is in good shape)
That other boy is in such good shape (the point of that is what)
Send me a picture (not our OFFICE a picture, but to my personal email account)
what he wanted for his birthday (months away)
How old are you now</p>
<p>If the boy, who volunteered for Republicans, found it “sick” it was “sick”- why would Foley want a picture? or to send him a birthday present?</p>
<p>and you have to understand how pedophiles and seducers work- they don’t charge right in, its more subtle, testing the waters, seeing who will take the bait…</p>
<p>maybe this guy never actually did anything, but he showed very poor judgement, at best, and if there was no meat, he would have held on…</p>
<p>I’m not trying to pretend that the email is elegant, useful, or intelligent. I’m simply asking, for the third time, which part exactly is sexually explicit, as the headline screams? </p>
<p>Is it biking 25 miles? If so, there’s gotta be something about the use of bikes that I just simply do not know. </p>
<p>Another boy is in good shape? (Have you seen many congressional pages??? They’re ALL in good shape, it seems to be a job requirement.) </p>
<p>Send me a picture? I could be wrong, but, I’m pretty sure that keeping photographs on file is pretty common in congress. </p>
<p>What do you want for your birthday? Seems wildly out of context with whatever the appropriate relationship is supposed to be, but, I still fail to see how it’s sexually explicit. </p>
<p>How old are you now? Kind of “off”, certainly not the sort of thing most people might send, but, again, where’s the sex?</p>
<p>Oh, and for the record, I’d have the same questions if the six-term rep were democrat, though admittedly I’d probably be too lazy to post.</p>
<p>As the parent of a former House Page, I’m glad that Congressman Foley resigned to say the least. Too bad Rep. Studds (MA-10th) didn’t do the honorable thing 20 years ago when he admitted guilt to being “with” a male page. </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Gerry_Studds[/url]”>http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Gerry_Studds</a></p>
<p>Ditto w/ Rep. Barney Frank (MA-4th) and his intern in the late '80s.</p>
<p>All these men are a disgrace to Congress.</p>
<p>if this was a directed at a female page about other females, it would be okay with you?</p>
<p>the boy who received them himself was creeped out, but guess this would be okay for your son or daughter for some old man to ask for pictures of them, whom they really had no relationship with</p>
<p>and it wasn’t send one to my office for our records, no, it was a request to a personal email account</p>
<p>the page never worked for Foley, so why in the world would he need a picture…come on</p>
<p>as for the discussing physical attributes, sorry, talking about another minor pages body is icky, but I am guessing because this was a MALE page, maybe people think it is all innocent</p>
<p>Isn’t there supposed to be a comment about Clinton by now?</p>
<p>CGM, you aren’t reading my posts. I never said it was - or wasn’t - o.k. to send the emails, or that they were - or were not - creepy. I haven’t offered any opinion at all as to what I think. </p>
<p>I merely asked a question: which part of the known, visible content is sexually explicit? Are you going to answer my question, or, are you going to continue to try to mount an argument against a post or series of posts that does not exist?</p>
<p>Mini - it’s tempting, but, I’m probably in the minority of republicans who did NOT think Clinton should have been impeached. Hillary, on the other hand, should have her head examined for staying with the sleaze, but, that’s some other thread. Or hopefully not.</p>
<p>Well, I not only think Clinton should have been impeached, but tried and convicted for war crimes and crimes against humanity.</p>
<p>You all are arguing over incomplete information - I hope! Every quote or excerpt I have seen so far might be a little creepy, but wouldn’t qualify as “sick sick sick sick sick” but OTOH, there were supposedly references to sexual organs and sexual acts. I have not seen those specific quotes yet. That would probably qualify as “sick sick sick” in an email exhange between congressman and underage page. But based on what I have learned here on cc about media reporting, I can’t assume anything!</p>
<p>latetoschool, I agree with you on the face of it. While the e-mails seem a little too personal, they don’t come across as expressly or undoubtedly sexual. Certainly nothing that would result in an immediate resignation.</p>
<p>If Foley were in fact innocent, I think the normal response is what we saw from Foley’s staff - it’s a democractic smear, the e-mails were innocent, etc. etc.</p>
<p>So I’m inclined to think that this congressman probably had a lot of other instances of totally inappropriate activity going on, and he may have just seen the writing on the wall. That’s the only thing that even remotely comes close to explaining why he just resigned without much of a fight.</p>