Congressman Resigns: Sent Letters to 16 Yr Old

[B_big dirigible]

That requires an investigation. That would be criminal indeed, because it endangered children.

But did it?

Now news about yet another Washington sleazebucket of any party affiliation is all very "so what else is new" - it doesn't get me all that interested, so I haven't been wallowing in the details. But wasn't the actual offense limited to (so far as presently known) e-mails? Rude and inappropriate e-mails, but still just talk. I'm as glad as anyone that he's booting himself out of there, but I don't see how he can be considered one of the city's major predators if all he did was type inappropriately.

 

[Lex]

But did it?

Now news about yet another Washington sleazebucket of any party affiliation is all very "so what else is new" - it doesn't get me all that interested, so I haven't been wallowing in the details. But wasn't the actual offense limited to (so far as presently known) e-mails? Rude and inappropriate e-mails, but still just talk. I'm as glad as anyone that he's booting himself out of there, but I don't see how he can be considered one of the city's major predators if all he did was type inappropriately.

Unbelievable.

 

[B_big dirigible]

Unbelievable.

You see no difference between word and deed?

 

[joyboytoy79]

You see no difference between word and deed?

I think the problem is that Mr. Foley would argue that words will inevitably lead to action. In fact, i think he HAS made that argument many times, which leads me to believe he had much intent behind his words. I also wonder if his prompt resignation doesn't hint at even more disturbing skeletons in his closet, like, maybe an illicit encounter?

 

[Lex]

You see no difference between word and deed?

I think his intentions were clear from his words.

 

[fortiesfun]

Of course there is a difference between word and deed, but words are damaging in this case also. Read the full transcript of the correspondence Lex posted above and tell me that it wouldn't fuck with your head if you were sixteen.

What I think is so very tricky and sad about all this is that Foley's sexuality has been the subject of speculation for some time. His run for the senate seat from Florida was aborted when it became clear his orientation was going to become an issue. Unfortunately, he is running in an area where homosexuality is demonized, so there is little difference between being gay and being a pedophile in practical terms for him. (Not that he hasn't fanned those flames himself.) I am appalled that he didn't make the distinction, but if you really think you are going to hell already, it must be hard to draw the line appropriately.

 

[davidjh7]

I would add that people who have gay children and siblings and are Republican also have serious conflicts of interest as well.

Not always---I have had many friends who have been ostricized (sp?) by their family, to the point of being thrown out, literally, in the snow with only the clothes on their back. Some espouse these wonderful "family values" without regard to their effect. And, Pecker, please note I am NOT reffereing to you, or those who share your tolerance and willingness to keep an open mind, yet still retain your core values. THAT I can totally respect!:smile:

 

[fortiesfun]

I have had many friends who have been ostricized (sp?) by their family, to the point of being thrown out, literally, in the snow with only the clothes on their back. Some espouse these wonderful "family values" without regard to their effect.

I consider myself a liberal, but I have to say that I have known this unfortunate situation to happen in our circles as well as in conservative ones. I am not sure at the individual level you can find agreement between behavior and party affiliation.

In keeping with this thread however, there are significant differences in the party platforms of the major parties concerning gay rights. I am always a little mystified by those who feel that the economic benefits offered by a political philosophy outweigh the fact that those benefits will be denied to a portion of the population because of their sexual orientation alone. Rep. Foley had been caught in exactly that position, I'd say. He earnestly believes in his party's cause even if it meant that he had to remain in the closet in order to partake of its benefits. Unfortunately, that habit of deception may have contributed to his making some very bad judgments about how and where to draw the lines.

 

[Lex]

The fallout begins in earnest.

From CNN.

House Republican leaders mounted an effort to explain their own conduct after the resignation of Rep. Mark Foley, and they suggested there should be a criminal investigation of Foley's contacts with congressional pages. A strongly worded statement assailing Foley from the chamber's top three Republicans came as they addressed questions about what they knew of the incidents and what action they took.

Calling Foley's contacts "an obscene breach of trust," the congressmen said in their statement that his "immediate resignation must now be followed by the full weight of the criminal justice system." ...

...

"While the speaker does not explicitly recall this conversation, he has no reason to dispute Congressman Reynolds' recollection that he reported to him on the problem and its resolution," the Hastert statement said.

No one in the speaker's office "was ever made aware of any sexually explicit e-mail or text messages at any time," the statement said.

But Rep. Dale Kildee, the only Democratic member of the House Page Board, insisted Saturday the full board did not investigate Foley.

"Any statement by Mr. Reynolds or anyone else that the House Page Board ever investigated Mr. Foley is completely untrue," the Michigan Democrat said in a statement.

The Foley e-mail allegations first arose in 2005, and the Democratic National Committee said Reynolds took no steps to discipline Foley -- "apparently choosing instead to sweep the matter under the rug to protect the Republican Party's dwindling chances of retaining control of the House."

"Reynolds' inaction in the face of such a serious situation is very troubling, and raises important questions about whether there was an attempt to cover up criminal activity involving a minor to keep it from coming to light before Election Day," said committee spokesperson Karen Finney.

 

[DC_DEEP]

Hey, Lex, sweetie, you have to read today's (Sunday, Oct 1) Washington Post article about Bastert... ooops, I mean Hastert's response... talk about unethical slimebags. I'm thinking that, in this whole deal, Dennis Hastert was even worse than Foley. Evidence has surfaced which contradicts Hastert's claims that he "only heard about this last week", when several sources indicate that he was informed about Foley's attempted involvement with the page months and months ago - but took no action.

 

[joyboytoy79]

...The Foley e-mail allegations first arose in 2005, and the Democratic National Committee said Reynolds took no steps to discipline Foley -- "apparently choosing instead to sweep the matter under the rug to protect the Republican Party's dwindling chances of retaining control of the House."

"Reynolds' inaction in the face of such a serious situation is very troubling, and raises important questions about whether there was an attempt to cover up criminal activity involving a minor to keep it from coming to light before Election Day," said committee spokesperson Karen Finney.

This is what bothers me the most about this case. The cover-up.

I don't know how well he could be branded a "pedophile" when the legal age of sexual consent in DC is 16. I can't be sure of it, but i assume, since he had the most face-to-face contatct with this boy in the workplace, any sexual activity that may have occured would have therefor taken place in DC. He wouldn't have been breaking any laws. http://www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm

This leads me to believe he either resigned because he HAS had contact with boys under the age of 16, OR he resigned because he is homosexual. I don't know how internet laws work for sure, but i'm not sure there is any suspicion of "illegal activity with a minor." If the boy was 16 and any activity took place in DC, no laws were broken.

 

[DC_DEEP]

jbt, that's an interesting take, and an extremely pertinent aspect of the whole affair. Even if the boy was of legal age, (hmm, see my thread on "age of consent") there are just so many things wrong here. Even president Clinton had such fallout from his antics. Granted, there may have been no actual contact in the Foley case and there was in the Clinton case, but still, at least Monica was NOT a 16-year old. The part of either case that bears scrutiny is the power thing. It's like a college professor sleeping with a student, or a boss sleeping with one of his employees. It's just unethical.

I'm not faulting Foley for "having those urges," just for following through with some, attempting to follow through with others, especially when he has been in a position to villify others for the exact same behavior.

It's way past time for people to stop being apologists for their (hoo-rah!!!) chosen political parties, and demanding more transparency and ethics in our government. Or else. It won't happen, though. The silly little democrat/republican line will not be broken in my lifetime... the sheeple seem to think it still has too much to offer them.

 

[SpeedoGuy]

Don't think for a minute congressmen resign because of their shameful behavior. The only real shame is getting caught.

 

[mindseye]

If you can call me a "sheeple", I get to call you an ostrich. Take your head out of the sand for a moment: Dredging up Monica Lewinsky is a pathetic and desperate comparison. Foley's predation was known to several members of the House leadership, including Denny Hastert -- there was a concerted effort for almost a year to protect Foley at the expense of the pages he worked with.

Clinton's tastes were for somewhat older women than Foley's targets -- and his tastes were already well known at the time. The news about Gennifer Flowers and about Paula Jones had already been well-publicized.

You're trying to draw a comparison between Clinton's personal failings, and the institutional failings of the leadership of a party that talks and talks and talks about protecting children on the internet (COPA, COPPA, DOPA, CIPA, CDA), but are willing to throw children under the bus in order to save their own faces.

____________________________________________________________

On another note, I wonder where the kids' parents were during all this. Did they know as well, and allow Foley to send these messages to their kids -- or were they so uninvolved with their kids, and so unconcerned with what they did online, that this could go on for a year without them being aware of it?

 

[Lex]

Hey, Lex, sweetie, you have to read today's (Sunday, Oct 1) Washington Post article about Bastert... ooops, I mean Hastert's response... talk about unethical slimebags. I'm thinking that, in this whole deal, Dennis Hastert was even worse than Foley. Evidence has surfaced which contradicts Hastert's claims that he "only heard about this last week", when several sources indicate that he was informed about Foley's attempted involvement with the page months and months ago - but took no action.

The GOP's INACTION is what concerns me even more than Foley's advances. As we have discussed here ad nauseum, attraction often can not be as controlled as we would like. That being said, for members of the Congress to know that he had these attractions, was following them in electronic format (at least), and do nothing knowing that he was around several pages all the time is inexcusable.

 

[rawbone8]

Leadership. Ethics. Accountability. Decency.

Standing up for and protecting the right principles and the just causes in spite of the fallout.

Or abandoning those to protect congressional seats.

 

[joyboytoy79]

Mindseye:

I don't disagree with you, per se. I don't know that i agree either. I'm rather conflicted about the whole thing. I am NOT a staunch democrat, nor am i a republican of any sort. Yet, there have been republicans who seem to make political sense, and who go against the grain of the party as a whole. To me, making gross assumptions on a person based on his political afilliation is just as bad as making gross assumptions on a person based on his sexual orientation.

Now, what i do see here is a case of workplace sexual harrassment. There is a power differential. Also, even if the boy was of age, he's very young. Do i think Foley has, or had, any right to spout off about protecting children from online predators? NO! The man is a blatant hypocrite. The thing that bothers me, is that there are probably just as many female pages as male. Would this story be getting as much press if Foley had been soliciting attentions from a girl? I don't think so. Does this sort of thing happen to girls on capitol hill? Probably more often than it happens to boys.

 

[rob_just_rob]

The GOP's INACTION is what concerns me even more than Foley's advances. As we have discussed here ad nauseum, attraction often can not be as controlled as we would like. That being said, for members of the Congress to know that he had these attractions, was following them in electronic format (at least), and do nothing knowing that he was around several pages all the time is inexcusable.

Well, come on. This was an adolescent male page, not an adult female intern. Totally excusable.

 

[mindseye]

I don't disagree with you, per se. I don't know that i agree either. I'm rather conflicted about the whole thing. I am NOT a staunch democrat, nor am i a republican of any sort. Yet, there have been republicans who seem to make political sense, and who go against the grain of the party as a whole. To me, making gross assumptions on a person based on his political afilliation is just as bad as making gross assumptions on a person based on his sexual orientation.

I hope that's not what you've inferred from what I've written. I try very hard not to judge individuals based on their party affiliation here. Here's an analogy: My cousin is a shift manager at a Wal-Mart in his hometown. I certainly don't hold him personally responsible for the decisions made by the corporate leadership.

History has shown us plenty of examples of sensible and honorable Republicans: Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, and Dwight Eisenhower were all exceptional presidents. Nixon may well have been too, if it weren't for his personal paranoia. But today's Republican party has moved away from sense and honor, and has become instead an insular cabal that has sacrificed its ideals to protect its power. That's a criticism of the folks at the top of the Republican dynasty, not the individuals at the bottom. (And really, I'm thiiis close to starting a separate thread on this point.)

 

[invisibleman]

Does the U.S. Government have psychological screenings for political positions in DC for pederasty? How do you really know about who likes children sexually?

There are a lot of contingency issues as well. Not to say that this actually happened: What if the teen seduced the older pedophile? (Example: The teacher (I don't know her name) that had sex with her teenaged student (I don't know his name either.) and had his kid, too. They later got married.) Couldn't this be a blackmail type of situation? (All teenagers aren't angelic and defenseless either now. I wasn't.) Maybe Congressional pages' age requirement should be 20 years old.

I think the real questions are: Why aren't parents screening their kids' internet usage? Why aren't parents asking their kids about who they hang out with? Parents are going to need to be a lot more aware of what their kids are doing and who they're around. Why do certain adults find children and teenagers sexually attractive? Once you find out the reasons why. Parents can protect their kids better.