Foley scandal: It's the Democrats' fault!

[Bennett Cerf]

Did Democrats Page Mark Foley?
Investor's Business Daily

Scandal: Right after Mark Foley was revealed to have had inappropriate e-mail conversations with a 16-year-old page, he resigned and checked into rehab. Now, what did Democrats know, and when did they know it?

Yes, you read that right: the Democrats. It's of course clear that Foley, a Republican representative from Florida, resigned for good cause. We don't defend him or his inexcusable behavior -- good riddance.

But it didn't take long at all after Foley's resignation for the Democrats to call for an investigation of the entire Republican leadership in the House, charging that GOP stalwarts knew early on that Foley, as they like to say in the rehab business, had a "problem."

Democrats have begun losing their once-significant lead in the polls, and a mere five weeks remain until the midterm elections. Is this scandal the Democrats' own "October Surprise," meant to throw the GOP into a tailspin shortly before the vote?

Recent polls show Democrats aren't doing very well on several key issues. What better way than a good, old-fashioned sex scandal to get people's minds off such things as the importance of winning the war in Iraq, our ongoing vulnerability to terrorist attack and the necessity of keeping the Bush economic boom going?

As it is, Republicans deny knowing about the explicit text messages that Foley sent to a 16-year-old congressional page back in 2003. In repudiating Foley, House Speaker Dennis Hastert called the messages "vile and repulsive."

Despite this, the immediate take by Democrats and much of the mainstream media was that this was a classic example of Republican hypocrisy -- talking "morals" and "values" while all the time shielding a child predator. But it was nothing of the kind.

If anything, the episode reveals the Democrats' hypocrisy about their own behavior. The fact that Foley resigned virtually within minutes of being told that ABC News had copies of his salacious e-mails and text messages indicates he at least felt shame for his actions. Can the same be said for Democrats?

Sadly, it doesn't seem so. How else can you explain the following?

In 1983, then-Democratic Rep. Gerry Studds of Massachusetts was caught in a similar situation. In his case, Studds had sex with a male teenage page -- something Foley hasn't been charged with.

Did Studds express contrition? Resign? Quite the contrary. He rejected Congress' censure of him and continued to represent his district until his retirement in 1996.

In 1989, Rep. Barney Frank (news, bio, voting record), also of Massachusetts, admitted he'd lived with Steve Gobie, a male prostitute who ran a gay sex-for-hire ring out of Frank's apartment. Frank, it was later discovered, used his position to fix 33 parking tickets for Gobie.

What happened to Frank? The House voted 408-18 to reprimand him -- a slap on the wrist. Today he's an honored Democratic member of Congress, much in demand as a speaker and "conscience of the party."

In 2001, President Clinton, who had his own intern problem, commuted the prison sentence of Illinois Rep. Mel Reynolds, who had sex with a 16-year-old campaign volunteer and pressured her to lie about it. (Reynolds also was convicted of campaign spending violations.)

You get the idea. Democrats not only seem OK with the kind of behavior for which Foley is charged, but also they protect and excuse it. Only when it's a Republican do they proclaim themselves shocked -- shocked! -- when it comes to light.

We have a lot more questions about this whole affair. The timing of the revelations, as we noted, couldn't be more propitious for the Democrats. Turns out both the Democrats and several newspapers seem to have known about Foley's problem as far back as November, according to research by several enterprising blogs.

Why didn't they come forward then? Who dredged up these e-mails -- and why did they hold them until now? This reeks of political trickery.

We're glad Foley's gone. He betrayed Congress, his party and the trust of the 33 pages who serve in Congress, and their parents. He behaved immorally, and we won't be surprised at new revelations.

That said, if this scandal is the Democrats' answer to their problems at the polls, it's pretty pathetic. It shows a base contempt for the voters.

[krabapple]

Do we know that Foley wasn't, er, '*asked* to resign by Republican higher ups -- this doofus assumes 'shame', the least likely of political motivators.

As for Studds and Frank, who created the atmosphere whereby sexual pecadillos demand impeachment, resignation, or worse?

Dems are 'shocked' -- delighted, of course -- to see the sanctimonious moraliing blowhards on the Right shown up again.

But it's always impressive to see how fast the Repubs get their 'talking points' out...like this scripted job. Do they think such blatant attempts at 'neutralization' aren't at least as cynical as what they accuse others of?

[Bennett Cerf]

Turns out both the Democrats and several newspapers seem to have known about Foley's problem as far back as November, according to research by several enterprising blogs.

Can anyone point me to one of the enterprising blogs which has determined that "the Democrats" knew about this in November? I'd love to know how they're defining "the Democrats."

[Rspaight]

Funny he doesn't mention Dan Crane. But that wouldn't fit the narrative, would it?

That's the problem with scandals like this. You quickly get on a slippery slope of moral outrage and start comparing Studds (who boinked a page 19 years his junior in 1973) and Foley (who in IMs asked pages 36 years younger to measure their dicks, then asked them to describe their masturbation preferences while talking about how "hard" he was while the teens tried to calm him down) and Clinton (who got a hummer from a starstruck 22-year-old intern) and so on and so forth. In truth, neither party has a monopoly on easily-criticized/creepy sexual behavior. Republicans are much more likely to use holier-than-thou anti-sex rhetoric to get elected, though, which certainly counts for something.

Perhaps a rating system would help. We need an algorithm that factors age, consent, activity and party affiliation into an Ickiness Score that would determine whether censure, resignation, or public stoning would be appropriate. (In such a scheme, Foley would get mad hypocrisy bonus points for being chair of the Committee on Missing and Exploited Children, and going around giving talks to schoolchildren on how to avoid internet predators.)

In any case, Krab is correct: blaming the Democrats for exposing Foley is pretty shameless for the crew that brought us Lewinskygate. (And accused Clinton of trying to take out bin Laden as a distraction from said scandal.)

But in the end, it's just plain pathetic that lurid stuff like this is the only thing that seems to make a dent in the media. The House GOP just legalized torture and indefinite detention without charge last week. No one cared. Now a Republican is caught trying to fuck pages, and the media is talking about the collapse of the Republicans. None of this is surprising, but I guess if you live by "moral values," you die by "moral values."

[Rspaight]

So now Foley is saying that he was molested by a clergyman. And that he's a "gay man."

Oh, lovely. Let's give everyone an excuse to conflate "gay" and "teen predator" again. Whoopee.

Ryan

[Bennett Cerf]

This is why we need a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Without it, Foley will have no choice but to marry pages.

[Bennett Cerf]

Foley, Pirro, Allen - Political Set-Ups?
Written by Doc Farmer
Tuesday, October 03, 2006

File this article under “Things That Make You Go Hmmm....”
 
First of all, let me make my meaning plain -- Former House Representative Mark Foley is a bastard.  He’s a scumbag.  He’s a sleazy pervert.  He’s a disgrace.  I don’t care if he laid a finger on any congressional pages or not.  His Instant Messages were disgusting, and he had no business using his position of power to “flirt” with underage boys (or girls, if he were so inclined). 
 
I do, however, have to ask this question.  Why did the revelations take so long to be released?  And why, particularly, now?
 
Apparently, these interchanges between Foley and a certain unnamed youth happened a long while back.  At first, I heard only about the e-mail messages.  I looked at them, and was singularly unimpressed.  It wasn’t lewd, lascivious, or perverted as far as I could determine.  A few were a bit odd, but that was it.
 
Then I read the IMs.  These were sickening.  But they raised questions in my mind.  How many people keep IM records?  What systems actually record them?  Why would anybody want to record them? 
 
Well, the fact is somebody did.  The Instant Messages were apparently written as long as three years ago!  Yet nothing was done about this for many months.  Until five weeks before an election.  And on a Friday afternoon, just in time for plenty of analysis by all the “talking heads” political programs.  Suddenly, all of the sordid details were immediately available for the world.  At that point, Foley resigned.  While he was right to do so (probably the only decent thing that jerk did), I have to wonder at the appearance of manufactured serendipity. 
 
Oh, and you may also have heard about Jeanine Pirro.  She was running for a Senate seat against the Hildebeast, but that didn’t last very long.  So, she started going after a state seat instead of federal -- Attorney General of New York State, if I’m not mistaken.  However, she has an Achilles Heel in her past and present -- in the form of her husband.  Apparently, he’s a jerk and a jailbird and a philanderer.  So, she has a quiet chat with Bernie Kerik (who used to work for Rudy Giuliani), to ask about whether she should bug her own personal property to see if hubby’s been doing the mattress mambo with someone other than her.  Suddenly, there is a great hue and cry over her asking such questions while taking no action.  Nobody seems to be concerned that the conversation between her and Kerik was bugged, though.  Nor do they seem to be asking why they were being bugged.
 
And then there’s George Allen, who is running for another Senate seat.  Suddenly, his opponent is bringing up claims of racism and Allen’s use of the “N” word in the past.  Allen’s been in plenty of elections prior to this most recent run.  No word, no hint of racism has ever appeared prior to this.  Oh, and by the way, I don’t see the term “macaca” as racist.  If Allen wanted to be racist, he would have called that jerk with the camera “Apu Nahasapeemapetilon.”  Assuming he was a fan of “The Simpsons,” and assuming that he could pronounce it, of course.
 
All of these things have happened within a couple of weeks. 
 
By the way, Allen’s opponent, James Webb, allegedly yelled the “N” word at folks in San Diego in his earlier years, until he and his fellow buddies were caught one time and had seven kinds of crap beaten out of them by a group of men who were the target of their racist tirade.  Nobody seems to be asking the same questions of Webb that they are of Allen.
 
Now, I’m not heavily into conspiracy theory.  Nevertheless, I do have to wonder about such a flush of “coincidence.”  All coming in a very close time frame.  All having to do with items which we are NOT yet sure are crimes, if at all (and yes, as disgusting as Foley’s actions are, we are not sure if any LAWS were broken yet -- although if his actions weren’t illegal, they bloody well should have been!) 
 
And one other coincidence.  All of them were rep/con/tairs (Republicans for our friends in Rio Linda).
 
Political sleaze is nothing new, of course.  Nevertheless, the impression being put forward in the MSM is that ONLY the rep/con/tairs are capable of it.  All at the same time, I might add -- very closely tied to the upcoming election.
 
While Foley resigned, and rightly so, there are many lib/dem/soc/commies who have committed illicit and illegal acts (or have been accused of same) and continue along with their political lives as if almost nothing has changed.  The first modern “intern” scandal, the Congressional Page scandal of 1983, was committed by Gerry Studds (D- Massachusetts) and Daniel Crane (R-Illinois). 
 
Gerry Studds didn’t apologize, and didn’t repent his actual acts of sexual intercourse with an underage male page.  Nevertheless, he kept his seat (even after turning his back on the Congress while their bill of censure was read), and was re-elected several times.  Crane apologized for having sexual intercourse with an underage female page, and was voted out the next year.
 
Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts) was paying a male prostitute/boyfriend out of his own pocket (which, by the way, was filled by the pay that you and I provided via our taxes), and the boyfriend/prostitute was running a brothel out of Frank’s basement.  Barney is still in office.
 
William Jefferson (D-Louisiana) had about $100 grand stuffed in his freezer.  He is currently under investigation for a number of crimes, but the most he’s had to “suffer” is the removal from a House committee.  Jefferson is still in office.
 
Patrick Kennedy (D-Massachusetts) got messed up on booze and pills and rammed into a security cordon with his car.  He denied it, lied about it, and then decided to “get help” with an addiction problem and dodged the political bullet.  Kennedy is still in office.
 
Cynthia McKinney (D-Georgia) violated House security, refused three calls for her to stop, and then SLUGGED A COP!  She cried “racism” and did not offer an actual apology for her actions -- just how her actions were “interpreted.”  McKinney is still in office (although, thankfully, her constituency have voted her out in the primary earlier this year).
 
The lib/dem/soc/commies have been trying EVERYTHING possible to oust their rep/con/tair opponents.  They’ve lied, they’ve misdirected, and they’ve even aided and abetted the release of classified documents in a time of war. 
 
It would not surprise me one whit if these “revelations” were part of an overall coordinated lib/dem/soc/commie campaign to smear their opponents in order for them to regain power.  They can’t seem to regain power with honest debate.  They can’t seem to regain power with honest elections, from photo-ID’d voters with American citizenship.  So, dig up the dirt and start shoveling the shit.  And start demanding investigations of the House rep/con/tair leadership with a “what did they know and when did they know it” point of view.  I wonder if they’re mixing the tar and plucking the feathers in anticipation.
 
By the way, have you noticed how quickly the “Clinton Loses His Temper” story has died, since Foley’s illicit story has surfaced?  Despite the fact that it was proven that Clinton lied in that interview?  Indeed, according to Oliver North, Clinton actually violated the law by targeting an assassination of bin Laden while three Presidential Orders were in place which prohibited such actions.  No word yet on whether anyone is demanding an investigation.  I’m not holding my breath.
 
No matter what the timing, Foley’s actions were disgusting and, very hopefully, illegal -- I say hopefully, because I’d like to see anybody who abuses their power in this fashion to be thrown in jail for a very long time. 
 
Even so, I have to seriously question the circumstances under which this and other politically-motivated stories have found the light of day.  Or more accurately, the spotlight of a very slanted lib/dem/soc/commie-oriented Mainstream Media.
 
Like I said, “Things That Make You Go Hmmm....”

[Bennett Cerf]

I can't begin to make sense of the convoluted conspiracy theories on this site, but I'm pretty sure he's blaming the Democrats too.

"This 'scandal' WILL come back to bite the Democrats in the ass!"

[Rspaight]

Then I read the IMs. These were sickening. But they raised questions in my mind. How many people keep IM records? What systems actually record them? Why would anybody want to record them?

Don't most/all chat programs at least offer the option to autosave, if they don't do it out of the box?

Geez, that guy's a loon. Probably sees "lib/dem/soc/commies" in his Froot Loops.

Ryan

[krabapple]

Gerry Studds didn’t apologize, and didn’t repent his actual acts of sexual intercourse with an underage male page. Nevertheless, he kept his seat (even after turning his back on the Congress while their bill of censure was read), and was re-elected several times. Crane apologized for having sexual intercourse with an underage female page, and was voted out the next year.

Hell, given this, why *did* Foley resign? Democrats made him? Doubt it. If Studds could be reelected to five more terms (after he and his former pageboy-lover appeared together to tell the world that what happened was no one else's damn business), why didn't Foley just take his chances too? Could it be because he knew that his asshole constituents wouldn't be as tolerant as the good people of Massachusetts? Or maybe it's because he made such a big stink as a 'perv-buster' himself?

[Bennett Cerf]

Fox News takes the "blame the Democrats" strategy to its logical extreme:

[Bennett Cerf]

[lukpac]

What's so pathetic is the attempt to equate pedophilia with homosexuality. If you want to have sex with kids, you must be homosexual (and vice versa).

[Rspaight]

"Blame the Democrats" seems to be the official talking point on this one. I've heard it several places now, from all the usual suspects.

I love how the liberals are suddenly this ultra-powerful cabal capable of making Fox News withhold dirt on Mark Foley *and* plant Republican pages from Republican families to gather dirt on Foley, like some Abercrombie Manchurian Candidate scenario. Yeah, right. I *wish* the Democrats were that competent.

Case in point: if the Dems knew about Foley in 2003, then why didn't they unleash that weapon in the hyper-important 2004 election, rather than inscrutably waiting for the 2006 midterms?

Ryan

[lukpac]

Case in point: if the Dems knew about Foley in 2003, then why didn't they unleash that weapon in the hyper-important 2004 election, rather than inscrutably waiting for the 2006 midterms?

You can take your logic and shove it.