I'm glad that some right-wing partisans such as Michelle Malkin are outraged about Mark Foley's sexual exploitation of Congressional pages and the inaction of House GOP leaders who knew he was behaving suspiciously and did nothing to investigate:
There is a time and place for attacking the Dems and the MSM. Now is not that time. Parents need assurance that their kids are safe on Capitol Hill. If Beltway GOP elites can't understand this, they are beyond hope.
The Wall Street Journal editorial page, on the other hand, claims that Republican leaders didn't stop Foley because they were too tolerant of gays:
... in today's politically correct culture, it's easy to understand how senior Republicans might well have decided they had no grounds to doubt Mr. Foley merely because he was gay and a little too friendly in emails. Some of those liberals now shouting the loudest for Mr. Hastert's head are the same voices who tell us that the larger society must be tolerant of private lifestyle choices, and certainly must never leap to conclusions about gay men and young boys. Are these Democratic critics of Mr. Hastert saying that they now have more sympathy for the Boy Scouts' decision to ban gay scoutmasters?
It's hard to believe that a newspaper with such a great news department allows itself to be associated with such vile sentiments. The Journal has to be the only major paper in America that would use Foley's abuse -- which has yet to be criminally investigated and might include more than online chat -- to make the implication that gays are predisposed to prey on children. Has there ever been a heterosexual politician in a sex scandal whose actions were viewed as a statement against all heterosexuals?
The Journal devoted thousands of words to President Clinton sexing up Monica Lewinsky, who was a college-age White House intern when their relationship began. Did it ever use that as a springboard to leap to conclusions about straight men and young girls?
There are times in politics when decency compels you to throw a member of your own side under the bus. This is one of those times. Anyone in Congress who protected Foley should resign from his leadership position and perhaps even his seat.
The instant message conversations Foley had with teens -- one interrupted by a boy's mother, prompting Foley's hope that she "didn't see any thing" -- may be the most disgusting conduct by a member of Congress since Ted Kennedy left Mary Jo Kopechne in the water in 1969.
The worst thing about this scandal is that it's the second time our politicians have been caught using the page program as a jailbait dating service. Members of Congress should register with the local sheriff's department when they move and be prohibited from living within 500 yards of a school or day care center.
-- Rogers Cadenhead
I'm wondering now "why" their Gal, Ann Coultier, hasn't been paraded about to give us the "real" spin on a pedophile in their party. I'm sickened to hear and read all hedging on Foley's behavior by the Republican's. I mean, didn't Coultier write the book on Liberalism and comparing it to some sort of religion? Well, the Catholic church did a cover up for their priests and their sexual behavior with young alter boys. How is this any different? And, for Newt Gingrich to even attempt to offer the justification for the pedophile, Foley's behavior, by stating it was not even investigated because it might appear Gay bashing. Last time I read, being Gay doesn't mean one is a pedophile. Also, how is Foley any different than John Karr? Recall, Karr, married a 13 year old and then progressively started being attracted to younger "children". It could have only been a matter of time before Foley started to looking in younger pastures. Let's call him what he is and being alcoholic has nothing to do with it.
Thank you for writing that. When will people understand that gay does not equal pedophile. I would expect this journalist to be writing for Fox News rather than the WSJ, where his ignorance is encouraged.
I used to live in the Congressional District served by Charles Canady and Adam Putnam. Since the last redistricting, however, I have been living in Mark Foley's district.
Since then, I have heard rumours of Foley's sexual preference. All I knew for sure was that he was a bachelor. It didn't really seem to make much difference except for vote against the Defense of Marriage Amendment (which I opposed, so I was pretty happy with it). It seems a legitimate question to ask of the House Leadership. The question isn't what we think of the correlation of Homosexuals and Pedophiles (I have no idea what the numbers are), but what the House Leadership thought.
I do think the people in Washington need to rethink the Internship programs. How many examples do we needs of problems (Gerry Studds, Bill Clinton, Gary Condit, Mark Foley) before someone shuts these things down for good.
Homosexual Groups Trying to Distance Themselves From Foley
Report; Posted on: 2006-10-03 15:35:37 [ Printer friendly / Instant flyer ]
Record shows congressman was strong supporter of sodomite agenda
by Steve Carlson
Disgraced former Congressman Mark Foley (R-FL), who resigned his House seat Friday after e-mails and text messages revealing his perversion were made public, wasn't simply a politician who happened to have a sexual neurosis. He was a strong supporter of the homosexual political agenda, with a voting record to prove it.
Just last week the 'Log Cabin' clique of sodomites within the Republican Party endorsed him for re-election. That group has now withdrawn its endorsement, although its web page editors were happy last week to laud Foley for having "consistently voted against the ... marriage amendment, and ... supported the hate crimes bill, [and] the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) . . ."
With Foley now revealed as the sort of predator that parents fear and that innumerable homosexuals are, the Log Cabin Republicans are trying to distance themselves from him. They and other sodomy activists are afraid Foley will make homosexuals look more perverted than they want Americans to think they are.
Homosexual journalist Michael Rogers has even gone so far as to claim that Foley was really "a homophobe" and "anti-gay," because his voting record was not as pro-homosexual as it could have been. But this allegation does not stand up to scrutiny. Foley's House votes show him unwilling to oppose the attempts of homosexuals to pervert marriage or even to ban homosexual adoption.
Moreover, the actions of the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), a political action committee devoted to mainstreaming sodomy, show that Foley was squarely on their side. The HRC, which donated $10,000 to Foley's re-election campaign in 2002, scored his voting record during the 2003-2004 Congress at 88% in agreement with their positions.
Luis Vizcaino, communications and marketing director for Human Rights Campaign, has declined to discuss Foley's resignation. "We're not going to comment on it," he said.
Can't we just remove the kids from Congress entirely, except for tours? I mean, it's not like this is the first time pages got diddled. I thought I read an article yesterday where previous pages said they were told as long as five years ago to watch themselves around certain Congresspeople. Pretty sick to not stand up and stop it if you knew that much, and it sounds like a lot of people knew that much.
Rogers correctly points out the necessity to de-partisanize this issue and punish the bad guys to the exclusion of all other political considerations. The "liberals don't care about morality unless a conservative does an immoral thing" argument is no better than the "conservatives deserve to be held to a higher moral standard because they won't shut up about morality" argument. Bad reasoning all around that will have the ultimate result of making everyone hate both parties.
"Anyone in Congress who protected Foley should resign from his leadership position and perhaps even his seat."
Here,here! And let's not forget everyone who sat on this information, thereby allowing him to continue on for all this time. Including Democrats and "news" reporters.
Are all republicans Pedophiles, Drug Addicts, or Gambling Addicts? How come you guys can't manage to break this news?
Are republican voters degenerates too?
Just wanted to let you know I linked to your blog in my column on
CBSNews.com today. Thanks!
If you want to take a look, here's the link:
So what's the score on the "conservative movement" so far?
6. Pro-Secret Prison
7. Pro-Corporate Welfare
8. Anti-Civil Rights
9. Anti-Law Enforcement
10. and, as should be perfectly obvious to anyone paying attention, Anti-American.
Oh, and let's throw in "Pro-Taliban", seeing how the Republicans are now preaching "make love not war with the Taliban" as the solution in Afghanistan.
Is "Forget and Forgive" the same, or worse, than a "Cut and Run"?
Don't get too fired up about the Republican response on this one. So far, I've seen huge amounts of condemnation from the right (despite the thin claims of a lack of it from some people), along with calls for criminal charges if appropriate (and most of them seem to think it's going to be appropriate).
...and the other shoe has dropped. Turns out that a couple of high-powered Democratic groups knew about the Foley emails and IMs, and sat on them for months, just to get some advantage for the upcoming elections. There's still plenty of time for the Dems to shoot themselves in the foot with this one.
You forgot Pro-Satan, Pro-Baby Candy Stealing and Pro-Puppy Crushing.
Turns out that a couple of high-powered Democratic groups knew about the Foley emails and IMs, and sat on them for months, just to get some advantage for the upcoming elections.
Which groups? I keep seeing hopeful speculation of this from despondent Republicans, but no facts.
the fbi had looked at the emails and decided they were only over friendly, the democrats held the sexual instant messages until election day,how sad. president clinton and the other congressman should all be ashamed, but now clinton is a hero.
Any member of our Government and any level who new about Foley's activities should be forced to resign. Both Democrats and Republicans must take resonsibility.....
Add a Comment