Foley - Just a Soul Whose Intentions Were Good...

In addition to their front-pager burying Jack Murtha, the Times delivers a touching warm eulogy to scandal-stricken Mark Foley.  The Times also contradicts at least the tone of an ABC News report which told us that "GOP Staff Warned Pages About Foley in 2001".  Since the Times buries that lead, I will too -  here we go:

Former Pages Describe Foley as Caring Ally

By RACHEL L. SWARNS

WASHINGTON, Oct. 1 — In the hierarchy of Congress, the high school students who serve as Congressional pages fall somewhere near the bottom, seemingly invisible as they scurry through the hallways of the Capitol ferrying messages to powerful lawmakers who often fail to give them a second glance.

In that rarefied world, Representative Mark Foley, the silver-haired Republican from Florida, stood out.

He took pains to befriend the 16- and 17-year-old aides, several former pages said in interviews on Sunday. He chatted with them on the House floor, they said, sent handwritten notes and urged them to keep in touch when they left Washington for their hometowns.

In 2002, he even stood up on the floor of the House, his eyes welling with tears, and commended the young men and women for their year of service. In his speech, Mr. Foley mentioned several of the high school students by name, describing a handwritten note to celebrate one young man’s graduation and a lunch with another at Morton’s steak house.

Ashley Gallo, a 21-year-old former page who is now a senior at Western Michigan University, said on Sunday that many of her friends had viewed Mr. Foley as one of the few lawmakers who made a real effort to reach out to young people.

“You didn’t have a lot of interaction with the members because most of them treated you like a kid, but he was pretty friendly,” said Ms. Gallo, who served as a page in 2001. “He would talk to people,” she said.

“He would say, ‘Here’s my e-mail address if you want to keep in touch.’ I don’t think anyone thought anything of it. They saw him as a mentor or a reference.”

Mr. Foley’s resignation on Friday, following the disclosure of his sexually explicit Internet and cellphone messages to pages, left many former pages shaken. And on Sunday, they burned up the phone lines and sent e-mail messages flying as they reached out to their old friends who remain tight-knit years after leaving Capitol Hill.

Patrick McDonald, 21, a senior at Ohio State University, said he took Mr. Foley up on his invitation to keep in touch and sent him an e-mail message asking about internship opportunities two years after he completed his work as a page in 2002. He said that he kept up a casual e-mail conversation — chatting about the 2004 presidential election, among other things — with Mr. Foley for several months and that it never became inappropriate.

“If a congressman was talking to you, it was the best thing in the world,” Mr. McDonald said. “And he made himself known to the pages in the first couple of weeks, befriending us, asking us how we were doing. He was one of the cool congressmen. He was willing to chill out with us.”

But despite Mr. Foley’s warm demeanor, Mr. McDonald and another former page said they later became aware that the lawmaker might have a darker side. Mr. McDonald said he learned that Mr. Foley had sexually explicit Internet conversations with several pages who had left the program. “I was disgusted, but I was not surprised when these revelations started circulating,” he said.

   

And here is the bit that is at odds with the ABC report:

Matthew Loraditch, who worked as a page with Ms. Gallo and Mr. McDonald in 2001 and 2002, said a supervisor had once casually mentioned that Mr. Foley “was odd” and that he later saw sexually explicit text messages that Mr. Foley had sent to two former pages after they left the program.

But Mr. Loraditch said he was never warned by program supervisors to stay away from him. “He was friendly,” said Mr. Loraditch, who maintains a Web site for alumni and attends Towson University in Maryland. “He would talk to us more than some other members would.”

From ABC:

A Republican staff member warned congressional pages five years ago to watch out for Congressman Mark Foley, according to a former page.

Matthew Loraditch, a page in the 2001-2002 class, told ABC News he and other pages were warned about Foley by a supervisor in the House Clerk's office.

Loraditch, the president of the Page Alumni Association, said the pages were told "don't get too wrapped up in him being too nice to you and all that kind of stuff."

...

Loraditch says that some of the pages who "interacted" with Foley were hesitant to report his behavior because "members of Congress, they've got the power."  Many of the pages were hoping for careers in politics and feared Foley might seek retribution.

Loraditch runs the alumni association for the U.S. House Page Program, and he is deeply concerned about the future effects this scandal could have on a program that he sees as a valuable educational experience for teens.

Well, it beggars the imagination, but maybe ABC News is stretching the import of the Loraditch quotes a little bit.

Or else the Times has gone into the tank for Foley - yesterday, the Times debacle was a big joke with Timesman Mark Leibovich writing in the Week in Review.

Comments

[davis]

Tony Snow accurately refers to the email messages as "naughty emails". Until the instant messages (of dubious origin) were released later, those naughty emails were all the House leaders were aware of. This is being blown out of all proportion.

[Neo]

The notification appears to be spotty.

Even ABC has "Several Democratic pages tell ABC News they received no such warnings about Foley" in their piece that pages were warned.

Pages report to either Republican or Democratic supervisors, depending on the political party of the member of Congress who nominate them for the page program.

Sounds like the Republicans were warned, but for some reason the Democrats were not.

[Neo]

I'm not trying to make excuses but ..

since the whole 1997/98 Lewinsky (White House intern) matter, not to mention the 1983 House intern scandal, any parent of an intern or supervisor of interns that doesn't tell interns to watch their backsides, etc. is not doing the interns any favours.

With the hall filled with duly elected drunks and lechers of the likes of the Kennedys and previously Gerry Studds, they should be warned about the possibility of this sort of lewd behaviour.

At least, Foley had the good sense to resign. Something that every drunk and lecher on Capitol Hill should see as their future. The Public will now settle for nothing less.

[clarice feldman]

Again--the NYT is afraid of homophobia or appearing to support it.

Seems to be going over Pelosi's head though. Good. Get enmeshed in this charade and offend a major constituency in the bargain.

[Rick Ballard]

Clarice,

My compliments on your second piece on this at AT. When are you sleeping these days?

[Bob]

Clarice you made it to the top at Lucianne

with your American Thinker article.

Nice job!

[clarice feldman]

Thanks. I never sleep any more. This has to stop.

[clarice feldman]

(There's a good one on Armitage coming tomorrow--I wrote it last week.)

[SunnyDay]

LOL, I would think the NYT would be on Foley's side! I guess they're standing back a little til someone figures out whether he actually broke any laws.

[clarice feldman]

How do you square demanding the Boy Scouts permit gay scout masters with a claim that a reputed homosexual's innocuous emails warranted a full bore investigation? You can't, I think.

[SunnyDay]

On Fox right now - the blogs and origin of the story.

[SunnyDay]

That was a little touch and go on Fox, feed them some more questions, Clarice. ;)

[clarice feldman]

Oh my, SD, I can write but cannot make them read.

Sweetness & Light reminds us of convicted Congressman Reynolds and his new role as Jesse Jackson "youth counselor" just in case you think the Dems' suggestion that Hastert should have conducted an investigation still sits well with you.

http://www.sweetness-light.com/archive/does-anyone-in-our-media-remember-mel-reynolds

[Jane]

I dunno, I'm skeptical of what is going on at the NY Times. I'd look for a bigger story there.

[clarice feldman]

Like what, Jane?
I think Pinch has been very solicitous of gays and he sees what Pelosi doesn't--the logical trail to this kind of charge.

You know all Congresscritters and party staff (i.e. official photogs , etc) have private hideaways hidden around the Capitol.
When will they initiate pariatel rules like they used to have in college dorms-- open doors and feet on the ground directives-- for those offices?

[Jane]

Like what, Jane?

Beats me but I'd bet some sort of internal revelation of their bias or something that will be very harmful when it gets out - because this Foley story, coupled with the Murtha story is just too big of a turn-around for a Monday morning.

I've also noticed that no one, on either side of the aisle has condemned Foley because he is gay. If nothing else, that is real progress.

[Jane]

What I will say I'm impressed with is that Foley has at least acted with honor, and that it is a stark comparison to how Clinton or any of the other dems acted under similar allegations.

[ed]

"Honor"? Jane you have read the IM's right?

[clarice feldman]

Be careful, Jane--In an hour or so the sinosphere will take your post and run with a claim that the WH is holding indictments on the NSA leaks over the NYT until after the election.

[JM Hanes]

Clarice:

Carrying over from the last thread, I don't think you were too kind to Hastert et al, per Kaus. Can you imagine the howls of protest should the Speaker start demanding access to other Congressmen's computers and private correspondence?

Should Hastert be expected to launch an investigation at every hint of sexual impropriety (and the emails in question at the time were, at most, a hint), he'd need to add a whole new division to the Capitol Police force. They could haunt the halls of Congress with special issue Taliban-style staffs in hand...

If anyone could be faulted here, it would be Rep. Alexander who declined to register a complaint with the Ethics Committee, and his reasons for not doing so, at least officially, seem plausible enough.

I also think Kaus himself underplays the dirty tricks aspect here, so to speak. While he may be right that "The gambit only worked because Foley was guilty," I think the whole blog laundering phenom will end up being a significant part of the scandal -- assuming the story actually survives the next couple of news cycles.

[clarice feldman]

Thanks. I think he was too strong in saying my argument "failed". I do think I laid out some sensible questions which so far, including one only the( very solicitous to gays) NYT has the wit to notice--How far can the Dems carry this argument without looking like gay bashers?

[AMDG]

I do not like this one bit.

Whether this is a set-up by CREW or not the issue to me is how much of the'naughty' e-mails did the leadership know about. They are creepy enough and a clear indication that Foley is probably a preditor - is sweeping it under the rug no way to handle it. Just ask the Archdioeces of Boston. This could be Alcee Hastings' and John Conyers'tickets to chairmanships.

As soon as the leadership saw those e-mails they should have called Foley in and told him that they were referring the matter to the FBI.

As a Republican I expect more of the leadership than to act like Democrats.

[clarice feldman]

BTW the people bashing hastert the hardest are very socially conservative and very partisan Dems. Go figure--It's like the Hitler-Stalin pact.

[clarice feldman]

amdg--Once again (same to you TWilliams) all Hastert knew of were the emails to one former page..which I wouldn't even classify as naughty. They ask how he survived Katrina, how his vacation went and would he send a "pic".

Straighten up and read right.

[Sara (Squiggler)]

I think what bugs me the most about this story is the self-righteousness of those who are criticizing Foley. I do not condone any old man's sexual fantasies being foisted on our youth anymore than anyone else, but putting the IMs aside and looking at the emails, which is all the leadership knew about, I would suggest that you prudes out there go to any MySpace site or to any of the matchmaker sites and read the profiles. You will see far far more explicit stuff posted in public profiles than you see in these emails.

When I had a profile up on Conservative Match for awhile, I got dozens of contacts from men ranging in age from 20 to 75. For a woman who recently entered her sixties, it is very strange to get email match contacts from 20 year olds. These emails are very explicit with direct questions to me about my sexual preferences. The age of the sender is not a factor in how explicit the questions are. I've been asked if I'll "go down" regularly, whether I'll dress in leathers and high heels, or all white with a feather boa, or high heels, garter belts, and whip. I've had guys who want to know how I feel about three-somes, about sex with other women where they can watch, I've been asked if I will be a "Mommy" and diaper them, I've been asked if I'm willing to spank. Some get even more disgusting. One of the worst, IMHO, was a guy in his 30s who asked if I was domineering and would order him to give a BJ to another man while I watched. Now to me, that is a real gag and far worse than anything Foley did.

The idea of a "friendly" email asking for a picture being in the same league is crazy. Even the IMs are tame compared to some I've received unsolicited on AOL or thru ICQ.

[Jane]

Honor"? Jane you have read the IM's right?

ed,

I haven't seen the IM's. The "honor" part was the resignation. I'm so glad Foley didn't wag his finger at us and tell us to mind our own business or worse lie about it and waste all our time.

[boris]

read the IM's right?

Read some, kid stuff compared to language used in boot camp back in 1965 when I enlisted at age 17.

[Extraneus]

Pun intended, Boris?

(Just in case boot camp really isn't *that* much different from how I'd imagined it, the IMs are here, linked via the box mid-way down the article. Don't read them right after lunch.)

[Jane]

Hastart is talking now, trying to cover his ass. I'd prefer he get to the truth of the matter instead.

I've seen the first 3 IM's in that article and they sure as hell don't make me all that uncomfortable. I can't get the other PDF's to open, which is too bad, because I'm always interested in seeing if the same things make me uncomfortable as everyone else.

[clarice feldman]

Jane, I'm told Hastert asked the investigators to find out who had the IMs and when they had it.

[Bob]

Read some, kid stuff compared to language used in boot camp back in 1965 when I enlisted at age 17.

boris, I'm sure it's nothing compared to the Clinton/Monica phone sex tapes!

[cathyf]

Jane, Taranto linked this morning:

"The language gets much more graphic, too graphic to be broadcast, and at one point the congressman appears to be describing Internet sex," ABC reports. But it did post a long exchange, taking nine Web pages, with the warning READER DISCRETION STRONGLY ADVISED. We will emphatically second that advice; reading through just the first few pages made us feel unwell. But for the record, it is here.

[AMDG]

Clarice Says:
[I]BTW the people bashing hastert the hardest are very socially conservative and very partisan Dems. Go figure--It's like the Hitler-Stalin pact.[/I]

And

[I] amdg--Once again (same to you TWilliams) all Hastert knew of were the emails to one former page..which I wouldn't even classify as naughty. They ask how he survived Katrina, how his vacation went and would he send a "pic".
Straighten up and read right[/I]

AMDG Responds:
1. If you are correct regarding what Hastert knew (which would not be very much) than I stand corrected. If that is the case then he needs to get out there right now and unambiguously set the record straight and do it again and again and again until even the MSM cannot avoid it. Including the fact that Democrat leaning groups with partisan agenda knew about the more damaging IM’s and held to them, putting potential victims at risk in his record straightening should be repeated as well.

2. I cannot help that the Democrats are trying to make hay of this. I do know that even the hint of looking the other way will cause immeasurable damage to the Republican Party. The crisis on the Archdiocese of Boston was not due so much to the predators themselves but the way that situation was handled (a note about this is that the Archdiocese had virtually eliminated the problem by the 1990’s – the blow up in 2000 related to cases in the 70’s and 80’s).

3. We need to face reality. The rules for the Democrats are different. There hypocrisy will go unchallenged by the MSM. If the Republican house leadership did anything that can be logically interpreted as sweeping this matter under the rug we are in big trouble. This needs to be nipped in the bud now.

[clarice feldman]

Well we're learning. Hastert's demanding the investigators find out who had the IMs and when is what I call a reverse Plame--It is exceedingly unlikely the question can be answered in 5 weeks and it'll hang in the air thru the election.

[AMDG]

Sara Says:
[I] I think what bugs me the most about this story is the self-righteousness of those who are criticizing Foley. I do not condone any old man's sexual fantasies being foisted on our youth anymore than anyone else, but putting the IMs aside and looking at the emails, which is all the leadership knew about, I would suggest that you prudes out there go to any MySpace site or to any of the matchmaker sites and read the profiles.[/I]

AMDG Responds:
Sara, the problem is the position that Foley held – the e-mails are creepy and a clear indication that Foley has problems. If one follows your logic than a reasonable conclusion is that you were bugged by those who criticized Clinton for using the oval office to turn an intern into a humidor.

Regarding your experience on Conservative Match – it surprises me to learn that Jim McGreevy went trolling there.

[Sara (Squiggler)]

Saw this just now:

Drudge is reporting Foley is entering rehab for alcoholism:

Painfully, the events that led to my resignation have crystalized recognition of my longstanding significant alcohol and emotional difficulties.

I strongly believe that I am an alcoholic and have accepted the need for immediate treatment for alcoholism and related behavioral problems.

[AMDG]

The IM's were held by George Soros through a group that he funded. By holding them they potentially facilitated a predator

There should be an immediate demand that the Democrats forswear any direct or indirect help from Soros’ money.

[Sara (Squiggler)]

AMDG -- I don't see it that way. I worked for a female Member of Congress and we were always asking for interns and our youthful volunteers to leave email addresses, pics, etc., and to stay in touch as they went off to college. Good volunteers with an interest in politics are nurtured and mentored. We sent reps to every scouting event where a young man received his Eagle scout award. We sent reps to graduations and gave out awards. So, for a Member to stay in touch is not unusual and in most cases is highly desired. These kids going off to college are already starting their networking and having a Member speaking for you is a powerful in when they are ready to job hunt.

[Jane]

Well I've done my required homework, read the IM's and they are inappropriate for a congressman and a Page but not all that shocking and over the top. It just sounded like sex talk to me - and I'd bet every single person criticizing Foley has entered into that at some point - at least I hope they have.

And I bet Foley resigned under sheer embarrassment. As I said earlier, at least he has some shame; people like Clinton have none.

[Sara (Squiggler)]

Well, if as is now claimed by Foley, he has a severe alcoholism problem, there is no telling if he even remembers having written half the garbage he wrote in those IMs. No excuse, but definitely an explanation of where his judgment went in doing so.

[Sara (Squiggler)]

Jane, I feel the same way and the point I've been trying to make. Even the IMs seem tame to me compared to some things I've received unsolicited. And, I would hate for anyone to see some of my private correspondence between myself and the person I was involved with physically.

Just proves my Aunt was right ... never put anything in writing you wouldn't want your Mother or your minister to read.

[clarice feldman]

And for Chrissakes --make no videos.

[Sara (Squiggler)]

LOL. That too, Clarice.

[Jane]

So after reading the exchange what occurs to me is how all these elected officials pretend to be such bloody prudes. Elected officials are weird beyond recognition, and that includes sexually weird. These are people who think they have to drink a beer in private, never mind engage in hotchat. Sheesh what a bloody joke. And the ex-page didn't sound the least bit reticent in the exchange either.

And let's not forget about this: http://www.snopes.com/politics/sexuality/reynolds.asp

[boris]

the e-mails are creepy and a clear indication that Foley has problems

The emails Hastert and Reynolds had access to might seem creepy in hindsight and they were enough to raise some concern but "creepy" is not a "clear indication".

Back before gay and queer became slang for homosexual, creepy and queer used to mean approximately the same thing. Claiming that "creepy" qualifies as a flashing red warning has more than a hint of profiling.

[maryrose]

clarice:
Wonderful article. If you lack sleep, try taking little naps in the afternoon.

[Sue]

MySpace site or to any of the matchmaker sites and read the profiles.

Why? Are there other congressmen/congresswomen posting there to 16 year olds? Or are you referring to how one 16 year old talks to another 16 year old? Just so I know how prudish I really am. Because how teenagers talk amongst themselves is not the issue here.

[clarice feldman]

Thanks, maryrose

[TexasToast]

Jane, I feel the same way and the point I've been trying to make. Even the IMs seem tame to me compared to some things I've received unsolicited. And, I would hate for anyone to see some of my private correspondence between myself and the person I was involved with physically.

Well, yes, of course, but you don't have a fiduciary duty to your correspondant. Remember that teacher who went to jail after she got pregnant by the high school kid? They eventually married, but that doesn't make it right. She had a duty not to use her position to exploit those to whom she has a responsibility.

As to only knowing about the innocuous e-mails - ABC followd the trail to the IMs in 24 hours - not months. Was not the slightest suspicion raised in the mind of anyone in the leadership's mind - after apparently repeated warnings - or did they just not want to know?

Hear no evil - see no evil.

[boris]

after apparently repeated warnings

What repeaded warnings? Or is that just some made up BS.