<p>“What would the republicans gain by covering up for Foley for all this time?”</p>
<p>As a side note to this, when people on the right (the religious right mainly?) opposed gay scout masters, they were vilified as anti-gay and rightly so. That being the case, how could anyone expect them to say, on the initial basis of ambiguous emails (as opposed to graphic IMs) that a gay congressman should not be allowed contact with male Pages (as Mr. Beckel, a member of the democratic establishment, said last night)? However, a helluva lot more should have been done a long time ago to find out whether there was more than those initial, ambiguous emails. Even Michael Reagan thinks Hastert should resign.</p>
<p>As another side note, if, as has been reported, the family of the Page in question was opposed to this story and the messages becoming public, how did they do so?</p>
<p>I haven’t seen evidence that Foley ever had “personal” (i.e. in the flesh) relationships with any of these young men. So while he clearly had ephebophilic tendencies, we don’t know that he actually acted on them. Whatever strange sexual peccadillos he may have had, we don’t know that he acted upon them, unlike Rudy Giuliani (whose lover was actually banned by a judge from setting foot in Gracie Mansion) and Newt Gingrich.</p>
<p>He hasn’t been convicted in a court of law - like Duke Cunningham, another fine representative of the party of family values. So far, we do know that he was “overly friendly”.</p>
<p>The Page Committe was an institutional answer. It was formed to create a BIPARTISAN oversight of the page program after the abuses by some Rep in the 1970’s. (I forgot his name). All the institutional safeguards in the world are no help if officials are determined to go around them. Now I see LaHood is advocating doing away with the program. How sick is that if our elected representatives can’t be trusted to be around adolescents?</p>
<p>the whole gay thing and boyscout comparison is absurd…Foley is a different kettle of fish…</p>
<p>none of this happened while the boy was a page, it happened afterwards, and Foley was smart enough to go after FORMER pages, as the page system itself has safeguards</p>
<p>to condemn the Page program itself is jsut a dodge for the real problem, the house leadership doing nothing…</p>
<p>CREW got the emails froma congressional staffer, and as the republicans have stated they only shared with republicans…must be one of there own maybe who thinks this was bad…</p>
<p>I must take strong exception to the suggestions by a few posters that this is somehow a “homosexual” issue. It isn’t. The sex of the parties involved is irrelevant; their age is the issue. The exact same scenario could have (and sadly, probably has) played out with a female page. Most sexual predators are male; most of their targets are female. It is true that the male-male homosexual cases seem to strike a nerve that other cases don’t, but the response to all should be the same. </p>
<p>DRJ4: I aprreciate your post #417. Unfortunately, I’m unable to relate it to anything which went before. “How you feel?” “Heartless?” The only issue that was raised was the basis for your assertion that the GOP leaders acted appropriately when they received the first set of e-mails last year: either you didn’t recognize them as likely evidence of grooming, and thus thought they were insignificant, or you did so recognize them, and felt that the GOP response to them was appropriate anyway. I still don’t know what you base your assertion as to the appropriateness of the GOP response at that time on, and your last post really didn’t cast any light on that question.</p>
<p>“As a side note to this, when people on the right (the religious right mainly?) opposed gay scout masters, they were vilified as anti-gay and rightly so.”</p>
<p>Zoos… Do you really think the GOP was worried that the public might see them as gay bashers? This is the party that had absolutely no problem previously bashing gays and gay marriage last election cycle to get the religous conservatives to vote. </p>
<p>Many conservatives in my state were told prior to elections that if they didn’t vote Gop, the gays would get to marry and they would marry in “your” church! These conservates could care less about anything else. </p>
<p>I don’t think the leadership was as worried about being called gay bashers as much as they were concerned about the fallout and possible seat loss. That’s why it will be investigated. Were Foley’s actions tolerated because he would comply with the party’s needs? Is there a possibility of blackmail going on in this situation? </p>
<p>Just as the NJ governor, he didn’t come out cause he wanted to, he had to because of an attempted blackmail. Foley set himself up to be easily tried and convicted under his own laws he created in dealing with cyber preditors. I might find it hard to believe he was unaware of his actions while at the same time introducing legislation to prosecute himself.</p>
<p>Good stuff here:
Beckel being totally politically incorrect (!)
“We all know what’s wrong when we see it; many of us prefer closing our eyes and refusing to see the roots of the problem that lurk in the shadowy parts of our society.” - xiggi
“…the party of the clueless does not hate America…they can’t even find it.” - mini
“I would prefer a hypocrite to a reprobate…” - logosprincipal
All of the pundits still referring to the possibility that Foley is a pedophile (!- fake gasp). Even trained psychologists don’t seem to know the difference between a pedophile and a pederast. I wonder why that is ? As usual, a complete media blackout about the practices of a large number of gay men.
If the page was a young girl and Foley straight, I am sure the Republicans would have been much quicker to reprimand him for the emails. Of course they had to be extra sensitive to his sexual orientation–just like a parent would have to be in criticizing a gay boy scout leader for being “too friendly.”
The whole CREW organization is very suspect, imo, as is the timing of this. Foley is gone: why blow it up into a huge Republican scandal? The party of no shame.</p>
<p>As to Giuliani–My understanding is that he and his wife the Vagina Monologues actress (can’t think of her name, too busy to google) had an unhappy marriage, she wouldn’t give him a divorce, and basically turned into “the thing that wouldn’t leave.” She went out of her way to make his home life miserable, and Rudy moved on without moving out. I’m sure it would make a helluva movie.</p>
<p>Newt’s resignation had nothing to do sexual adventures, more to do with the Democrats’ effective campaign of tying him up with mostly phony ethics charges. Sound familiar? Given the subject of the OP, it’s also worth noticing that Newt appears to have been one of those young high school boys victimized by predatory female teachers—he married his high school geometry teacher immediately after graduation. She was seven years his senior. Some people suggest that such affairs have no effect on young men’s future relationships, but I do wonder.</p>
<p>if they covered the name, and hid the identity of the page, and said:</p>
<p>Foley sent these emails to a page, asking for pictures, offering a present, etc., if it was a GRIL page, would they have acted diffently? I am really curious about that</p>
<p>If Foley had said, that page has a great body, and acts older than they are, would it have been percieved as more than jsut “overly friendly” if it was addressed to a female, and did the house leaders have a double standard as to what was appropriate for male and female pages approached by anyone in that manner</p>
<p>And adult approaching a minior, regardless of anyones gender, in that manner, should have been checked out andn nut just trusted…period</p>
<p>"Zoos… Do you really think the GOP was worried that the public might see them as gay bashers? This is the party that had absolutely no problem previously bashing gays and gay marriage last election cycle to get the religous conservatives to vote. "</p>
<p>No Opie I don’t. What I do think is that they were afraid to give the democrats another weapon against them – based upon the appalling gay scoutmaster nonsense. I’m sorry if I didn’t make that clear.</p>
<p>Driver:
So Newt cheated on his wife while she was in the hospital with cancer because his geometry teacher hit on him?
As for Rudi, do most husbands bring their mistresses into the home and ask their wives to move out?
Family Values indeed.</p>
<p>as soon as CREW knew, in july, they sent it to the FBI…and nothing happened…so what is suspect, they gave it to the authorities…and look what was under the iceberg…FBI dropped the ball…and was given time…we are talking two months after FBI was allerted by CREW…is that too long a time, to short</p>
<p>maybe others, and you know congressional staffer alerted the media last year, had the information and sat on it waiting for the people in charge to do the right thing</p>
<p>why is CREW suspect and Hastert, and his posse NOT…Hastert had the responsiblity, as did Alexander as did the House Clerk…they dropped the ball, and others had to take care of business because those that were supposed to do not, and that makes those that brought this out into the light of day suspect…guess those that tried to handle in “in house” with just republicans are not suspect at all, in some peoples’ views</p>
<p>“As to Giuliani–My understanding is that he and his wife the Vagina Monologues actress (can’t think of her name, too busy to google) had an unhappy marriage, she wouldn’t give him a divorce, and basically turned into “the thing that wouldn’t leave.” She went out of her way to make his home life miserable, and Rudy moved on without moving out.”</p>
<p>Well, duh, they did happen to be Catholic. They did happen to have vows. They did happen to have two children. And so Rudy invited his sweetie into their home for some hot, steamy sex (while the 8-year-old lived there) until a judge issued an injunction against her ever getting within 100 yards of the place again. Was he so poor that he couldn’t rent a motel? Or was it more “thrilling” to do it with his kids there? </p>
<p>Poor, poor Newt - ousted by Dems on trumped up charges rather than his sexual escapades. Can’t deal with a wife with cancer; can’t deal with a second wife with multiple sclerosis. When they get sick, it’s time to dump 'em, but not before taking up with someone else. A new adventure!</p>
<p>Yup. The party of family values. Party of Newt and Foley and Cunningham and Delay and Giuliani and Ney and the Mullah Omar Lover, and poor Denny who is always confronted with trying to figure out what the heck is going on. Grand Old Party. Why do they hate America?</p>
<p>Hereshoping: Are you asserting that sexual predation is more common among gay men than among straight men? If so, what’s your athority for that claim?</p>
<p>A suggestion? Somehow? Pluuzzhe! Don’t try being so subtle. </p>
<p>Since the members of your “side” are showing such glee in making this a partisan issue, let’s get at it. An male adult making sexual advances to a younger male IS very much homosexuality. What’s your definition of the term? Mine is “sexual desire or behavior directed toward a person or persons of one’s own sex.” </p>
<p>Obviously, for the good liberals who are living in an earshot of the Bay Area modern version of Sodom and Gomorrah, it is extremely hard to reconcile the positions of having to follow the more accepting party line–or values–with that of finding such joy in attacking the republicans for the actions of one Foley . Oh yes, in the eyes of some, there is a world of difference between consensual sex at 16 in DC, tougher online laws protecting children, or the behavior of youngsters of 19. Good for you! </p>
<p>For the record, I have zero doubt that had THIS Foley been Thomas Stephen Foley, you would be singing a totally different tune, and one more in line with the Clinton sexual abuse at the White House.</p>
<p>Forgiving and compassionate only when needed, aren’t we?</p>
<p>“as soon as CREW knew, in july, they sent it to the FBI…and nothing happened…so what is suspect, they gave it to the authorities…and look what was under the iceberg”</p>
<p>It’s the posting of the messages on the blog that is my question, along with what happened before and after July. I speak for no one else.</p>
This is the party that had absolutely no problem previously bashing gays and gay marriage last election cycle to get the religous conservatives to vote. </p>
As usual, a complete media blackout about the practices of a large number of gay men.