Powered by TypePad

« Foley - An Open Secret | Main | Mexicans Drink Tequila In Mexico! »

October 04, 2006

Comments

SlimGuy

And this joint is full of apologists for predators, enablers and liars.

Posted by: Dave | October 05, 2006 at 06:55 AM

Nope we are just trying to figure out the source of attack on the gop by anyone and this story just happens to involve homsexual overtones.

We are just forced to deal with the facts as they appear, nothing more than that

Dave

verner ----- "requesting that Pelosi and Rahm Emanuel ... answer under oath whether or not they knew about those IMs"

A year ago, at least five Rs in Congress knew about the emails: Hastert, Shimkus, Alexander, Reynolds and Boehner. Why shouldn't they all answer under oath about what else they knew at the time?

"which of the IMs occurred before he was suppose to be 18"

The number of pages who Foley IMed was greater than one. Therefore, knowing the age of one of these persons does not solve your problem.

Semanticleo

The Republican Party has a 'Big Tent' and we are going to find out if it's big enough to house self-loathing gays who (for closeted cover, no doubt) vote against pro-gay issues in Congress. I believe that means their personal careers are more important than voting out of character and principle. I for one want ONLY people who want to serve the public good, serving in public office. Any way I can unmask and eject the self-interested and meglomanical from
the rolls of political office, I say 'hear-hear' and 'Amen'. I never tire of 'leaks' because they sometimes uncover just a little of the 'truth' that many want, desperately, to hide.

Dave

MayBee ---- "Have all the transcripts been from the same page? It seems to me that is the case."

The ABC IMs are here and here. If there are some others that I've missed, I'd appreciate knowing about it.

Why are you assuming all this material is from one page? I'm not claiming otherwise. I'm just curious what is the basis of your opinion.

Patrick R. Sullivan

Ann Coulter on the...er...flexibility of the Dems on homophobia:

--------quote-------
We need to get a rulebook from the Democrats:

— Boy Scouts: As gay as you want to be.
— Priests: No gays!
— Democratic politicians: Proud gay Americans.
— Republican politicians: Presumed guilty.
— White House press corps: No gays, unless they hate Bush.
— Active-duty U.S. military: As gay as possible.
— Men who date Liza Minelli: Do I have to draw you a picture, Miss Thing?

This is the very definition of political opportunism.

If Republicans had decided to spy on Foley for sending overly friendly e-mails to pages, Democrats would have been screaming about a Republican witch-hunt against gays. But if they don't, they're enabling a sexual predator.
-------endquote---------

Ted Barlow

1. Tom, you might think that Josh and Kevin Drum are wrong about "The List" coming from Republicans, but it's a pretty straightforward reading of David Corn's post. I completely agree that it would be wrong to publish "The List", if it exists.

2. Could you spare a little outrage for your buddies Instapundit and Roger L. Simon decision to promote the jackass who thinks he's outing one of the pages who was sexually harassed? That's pretty bad too, wouldn't you say?

3. It would do my heart good if just one righty would admit that several sources (Brian Ross, The Hill) have said that the source of the original emails was a Republican.

http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/100506/news2.html

Jane

Well at least Leo is now on the record as being against privacy. Good thing to know and remember.

Anonymous Liberal

Tom, I think you're painting with far too broad a brush here. There are indeed some on the far left, particularly the more militant gay activist left, who approve of the outing of closeted gay Republicans. They argue that anyone who supports a party that stokes anti-gay hysteria to win elections forfeits their right to remain in the closet. Or something like that.

I don't agree with that rationale at all, and I condemn such tactics. Moreover, I think the vast majority of people on "the left" agree with me. Which is why I think it's totally unfair to write stuff like this:
This is the current state of the left - sexual privacy rights for their political oppnents are trumped by a desire for power.
I find that to be a ridiculous statement. This list has supposedly been around for a while, yet no one has published it, even in the era of the anonymous blog. So how widespread can this distain for privacy rights be among "the left"? And if some militant activist does print the list, why is the entire left culpable? What evidence do you have that any significant number of liberals approve of this sort of tactic?

This is exactly the sort of generalization you routinely mock when it comes from lefty bloggers.

And, on a tangential note, for all of you in the comments still spinning out Democratic conspiracy theories about this scandal, go read the article at The Hill linked to above by "anon." The whistleblower in this case was a GOP staffer. The IMs only surfaced in response to the ABC story, probably from the pages themselves who read it. There is no conspiracy. This scandal is a GOP self-inflicted wound.

Rick Ballard

Cecil,

I don't believe that I implied that they were all plants. It's not at all unusal for a kid to declare himself gay in junior high and the fact that they are gay doesn't mean that they are scum like Aravosis and Rogers. They are just prey to those two and I don't doubt that the predators have eyes in the gay bars. If they weren't openly gay and wound up in Rogers and Aravosis' sights then they were good subjects for the blackmail which is the outers favorite tactic.

That could well be the case of the kid who is (was?) working for Istook.

MayBee

JMH There are two details I'm not clear on. Is the page who got the emails from the same "class" as the pages who were involved in the IM chats?

So far, no. The email page is still in HS, the chat pages are older. 2004-2005 class (email) vs. 2001-2002 class (IM).

From the PDF originally provided by CREW, it's also impossible to tell if the young man actually provided the complete text of the emails he received, because it looks like he quoted from them rather than forwarding the actual messages themselves. I'd be curious to know if I'm the only one who thinks that the excerpts he provided seem somewhat at odds with his characterization of them as "sick, sick, sick..."

It seems to me that some part was edited out. I noticed one ( floating in the left margin of one of the pages. Of course, it could have been the page's own responses that were edited out.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say the "sick sick sick" was because he had heard Foley was gay or someone hit on pages (well, he says that last part). As I'm sure you know, some teen boys don't respond well when they think someone has pegged them as gay or bicurious.

Syl

Dave

Well, you are limiting the knowledge and prep to pages. I do not see it that way. At all.

I just cannot imagine in all honesty that those IM's weren't seen by anybody except pages. In fact the other pages, to my knowledge, did not see those IM's at all and were as shocked as everyone else when they came out.

And I saw interviews with a couple former pages who said they got some messages, yeah, but they didn't know others got them too.

No. Knowledge of the IMs moved outside the pages, current and former, into the realm of staff and into the hands of those who knew how and when to use this gift.

Anonymous Liberal

And I second what Ted said. Here's the article from The Hill.

cathyf
Smoke --> fire
I'm curious, BTW, about your personal opinions on the whole smoke/fire question. Suppose a gay man who has never had any sort of sexual contact with an underage boy attempts to sign up as a boy scout leader.

1) Does the act of him filling out the leader paperwork constitute "smoke" in your little aphorism?

2) If the boy scout office takes the "smoke" as indication of "fire", what should they do?

3) If they turn down his application, is this

a) a viciously homophobic act of discrimination which should be protested vigorously all the way to the Supreme Court?

b) a coverup of a gay pedophile?

Enquiring minds want to know, BTW.

Dave

JM ---------- "I'd be curious to know if I'm the only one who thinks that the excerpts he provided seem somewhat at odds with his characterization of them as 'sick, sick, sick...' "

I think someone else has answered this. The page's reaction is in the context of knowing Foley. So it's not enough to just look at the excerpts. You also need to take into account the experiences this kid already had relative to Foley. And also things the kid knows about Foley via other sources. The text doesn't exist in a vacuum.

Aside from that, I think it's self-evident that a 52-year old man does not request an "email pic" from a teen who is not a relative. While also discussing the physique of another teen.

I can't imagine that you would be blind to this if the context was heterosexual. Picture that Foley is straight, and the teenager is female, and the age difference is 36 years: "Hi Sally, when is your birthday; what you would like for your birthday; I just emailed your friend Kathy; she's in really great shape; send me an email pic of you."

I think Sally is very likely to think this is "sick sick sick."

boris

The IMs only surfaced

No Sale

MayBee

Dave:I'm just curious what is the basis of your opinion.

ummm...because as I said, that's how it seems to me.

Dave

JM ---- "The whole 'list' phenomenon is the worst sort of political and social blackmail"

I'm not sure where I stand on the ethics of that. But I'm curious what you think of this question. What if I stood up and said "I suspect Rep. X is heterosexual." Is that wrong? And if not, then what's the difference?

Is calling someone gay "making aspersions" (to quote Sen. Macacawitz)?

MayBee

I don't second what Ted said, but some have speculated on this very blog that perhaps Fordham or an Alexander aid was a source.

Dave

Slim --------- "Totally ignoring choice of belief is not tied to choice of lifestyle"

Just curious. If someone is gay and opposes gay rights, how is that not self-hating and hypocritical?

Neo

I have to agree with TexasToast about the probable need for a "death penalty" for outrageous behaviour by members of Congress.

Frankly, the whole "separate branches" thing that came up recently with Rep. "IceBox" Jefferson, is partly to blame. Normally, Joe Average would just report such an incident, like that of Mr. Foley, to the police or FBI, but because Rep. Foley is a member of the legislative Branch, it doesn't always work that easily.

Instead, there is a jurisdictional dispute to be decided first, then, assuming it doesn't go down the police/FBI route, it fall under House (or Senate) Rules, as these bodies (hardly) discipline themselves.

In the House, minor infractions are handled by the Speaker's Office. Major infraction go to the Ethics Committee, a completely dysfunctional edifice, so, as a practical matter, only the most egregious offense are sent there to languish sometimes for years (i.e. Rep McDermont). The Ethics Committee has now assumed the sole function of becoming a Purgatory of sorts for ethics complaints, where they are hoped to whither away (and quietly discharged) or await a "prisoner exchange" with the opposite party (i.e. Studds & Crane).

This leaves the Speaker's Office to handle some cases that should have gone before the Ethics Committee, like the case of Rep. Foley. The Speaker, while powerful, has limited options (as opposed to the ultimate authority of a functional Ethics Committee).

If the Ethics Committee is to remain dysfunctional, the Speaker needs the ability to bring an egregious offense directly to the House floor (something I don't think he can do now) for an up or down vote.

boris

If someone is gay and opposes gay rights, how is that not self-hating and hypocritical?

If someone is white and opposes white privlige is that saintly or hypocritical?

If the logic is "different" for apples than it is for oranges, it's not logic.

Dave

Rick ------- "a 'pages revolt' theme"

I think that's a good way to summarize what I've been describing.

"this isn't a merit based program at all"

I realize this is a bunch of rich kids who are connected. All the more reason that they would ultimately be outraged and seek revenge against the creepy character who's been hitting on them repeatedly.

I don't understand your attempt to explain why this is implausible. I also don't understand your tangent about local gay bars.

MayBee

"If someone is gay and opposes gay rights, how is that not self-hating and hypocritical?"

a) because 'gay rights' is a construct of the left to define their agenda as someone's "rights".

b)people have many more facets to their lives than whatever the left has currently determined to be 'gay rights'-- gay marriage. Their economic well being, their security, the abortion issue, the criminal justice system, the state of the public schools systems, the businesses they own, may all be more pressing interests to them.
I know I have to choose between parties because I don't agree in whole with either one of them. Why should a gay person be different than me? It has nothing to do with self-hatred.

Syl

What I think is obviously interesting is that these emails have been circulating for a long time.

And nothing came of them.

I mean how many news outlets do we know had possession of them and didn't get far enough to reach the point of publishing a story?

How deeply did that Fla paper investigate? They said they revisited the issue a couple of times. Did they interview any other pages? Who exactly did they speak to to get more info?

I mean all these journalists didn't even trigger a hint of a whiff of a trace of IMs or more salacious emails than what they had.

Nada. Squat. Nothing.

But now?

ABC gets the emails (did they get them during the first round?) and runs with them because Foley's opponent asks for an investigation. And kaboom!!!

Dave

JM --------- "With each passing revelation, I find it harder to believe the Innocents Abroad theory being floated here by Dave."

I'm not sure what the counter-narrative is. I think it's something like this: pages are a horny bunch who can't wait to get to DC so they can hook up with some dude older than their dad. And Foley was just trying to oblige.

Neo

This is rich.

Looks like somebody is upset about their loss of privacy.

So they hired Timothy McVeigh's attorney.

Syl

Did SemanticLeo just out him/herself as a gay or as a self-hating hetero liberal?

Dave

Slim ----- "this story just happens to involve homsexual overtones"

You should really try to do a better job of hiding your classic GOP homophobia. I know you can keep it in the closet if you just apply a little more effort.

If Foley was a straight guy hitting on female teens, I don't think I would hear you say "this story happens to involve heterosexual overtones."

The issue is not Foley that is gay. The issue is that he's a sexual predator. The GOP obviously thinks those two things are synonyms, which is why they are constantly talking about his gayness.

Jon Stewart said it well: "equating a 52-year old Congressman who preys on 16-year olds with being gay may be one reason the GOP is accused of gay bashing."

"We are just forced to deal with the facts as they appear"

As I have proven in several examples, it's more like the facts as they are invented.

Semanticleo

"Well at least Leo is now on the record as being against privacy. Good thing to know and remember."

Jane, you might want to review the status of 'pulbic official' vs private citizen as regards the SC.

Anyhew, there is no inherent 'right to privacy' in the constitution, is there?
Or so you people say when it serves your purpose.

Semanticleo

Syl;

That's one toke over the line.

Syl

Dave

I think there's a difference between pages and former pages speaking out once the story appeared on ABC and they didn't care for Foley's response, and the exposure of those IM's.

I just don't see all these pages vindictive enough to expose this much just to get Foley. Speaking out, and in general terms, is certainly the level most of them are at.

Releasing the IMs to public scrutiny is another matter entirely.

That's why I don't buy your theory.


Barry Dauphin

Has Corny made absolutely sure that no one on the list is in reality a covert operative? He wouldn't want to out a spy, ya know.

I wonder if this list is longer than the list of positive reviews for Hubris. Is it typical behavior for the co-author of a recently published book to change the subject?

Dave

Ted ---------- "Could you spare a little outrage for your buddies Instapundit and Roger L. Simon decision to promote the jackass who thinks he's outing one of the pages who was sexually harassed"

Jackass is right. And that includes sara the squiggler who pissed that information up and down the prior thread. Almost no one else did. Meanwhile she's expressing selective outrage about threats toward another page whose privacy is apparently being threatened.

The righty blogosphere is reaching a new low in this manner. And that's no small thing.

Pofarmer

Dave, their are lot's of reasons to oppose gay marraige. Not all gays support it. Most businesses don't support it. Most people in general don't support it. About 80% of Missourians showed clearly they didn't support it.

A Representative, after all,represents his constituents. How does that make somebody self hating?

norm d'plume

Passionate America did the public a huge service by disclosing a huge part of this story. He has more to come.

Dave

Jane ---------- "Well at least Leo is now on the record as being against privacy."

There's a big difference between my privacy being invaded by the government vs my privacy being invaded by people down the street who say some things about me that happen to be truthful.

A distinction you are eager to overlook.

Syl

SemanticLeo

That's one toke over the line.

Well, you either hate yourself or you don't. Which means, simply, that the construct of a self-hating gay is phony.

Some certainly would love to call me a self-hating female because 'Safe, Legal, and Rare' is good enough for me but, ooops, I'm fully supporting Bush and the Republicans.

Are all conservative women self-haters?

This construct you are using is ridiculous to the core.


Specter

What it really goes to is why the pages saved the IMs. I suspect it was for one of two possible purposes: 1) for later stimulation, or 2) to build up their own personal "gotcha" files for when they needed them as politicians. OF those two, I think the latter is the more plausible. It explains why the IMs were saved (which was not automatic as some would have you believe), and why they didn't come forward earlier.

norm d'plume

Anyone think that if Foley caved in to Rogers and voted the way Rogers, Corn, et al wanted him to vote, none of this would be in the media and Foley would still be in office, free to cyber with 17 year old former male pages?

Syl

Specter

I think those IMs didn't come from the former pages. They long ago had sent them to the Page Alumni group. The IMs were probably not even on their own machines anymore.

Neo

A third reason to save the IMs is for "kicks and giggles" as they had just had fun with the "perverted Congresman."

Ted Barlow

Specter,

You're right. Foley is the real victim here. I demand that the identity of every page that Foley was, um, victimized by be revealed all over the Pajamasphere. Citizen journalists to the rescue!

You people amaze me.

The Unbeliever

You should really try to do a better job of hiding your classic GOP homophobia. I know you can keep it in the closet if you just apply a little more effort.

And you should take better steps to cloak your vintage lefty disingenuousness. All we've seen from you thus far, Dave, is repeated attempts to ignore anything that doesn't fit your worldview, while assuming the worst intentions of everyone you view as a political opponent. In your narrow little hobgoblin mind, it's impossible for anything to be other than how you define it; thus anytime a conservative says the word "gay", you fly off the handle ranting about homophobia. And anytime a homosexual votes outside the neatly defined boxes the liberals have set up for their favored victim groups, they become self-haters or traitors.

It's a neat trick if you can pull it off in jr high debate, but give it a rest already; the adults are tired of your little tantrums.

The issue is not Foley that is gay. The issue is that he's a sexual predator. The GOP obviously thinks those two things are synonyms, which is why they are constantly talking about his gayness.

Uh, I don't know what threads you have been reading, but everyone on here has been arguing about the timing of the logs' release, the oversight responsibilities of Hastert, and the age of the page/ex-page. It is you who keeps bringing up the fact that the whole sordid mess was a gay affair, which you apparently do solely for the purpose of accusing various people of homophobia.

In short, stop projecting. Perhaps other boards think such sophistry is clever, but it's getting old here.

Neo

Well, it seems at least one page feels he is a victim, and not a victim of Foley.

Specter

Ted Buttlow,

I was not defending Foley. The question is why would anyone even save the IMs. Maybe you missed part of the discussion - AIM from that time-frame DID NOT do automatic logging. You had to manually click "Save" to save a chat session into RTF format. So what are the reasons a page would save the information. Try to keep up.

Dave

syl ----------- "you are limiting the knowledge and prep to pages"

Not exactly. I think lots of people were hearing all sorts of rumors, and were very happy to pray for impending doom for Foley et al. But the key substance (explicit IMs) started out in the possession of pages (virtually by definition), and I think stayed in the hands of pages until circa 9/29/06 (which is not a year ago; I think I should say that because I realize Clarice is easily confused by dates).

Here's one reason why I think it's implausible to suggest that other parties (like CREW, for example) had IMs prior to 9/29. Why did Ross open with the emails story? Why not open directly with the IMs story? Simple answer: until 9/29, the IMs were held by pages. When Ross stuck his neck out by running with the emails story, that was enough to pry the IMs loose.

"I just cannot imagine in all honesty that those IM's weren't seen by anybody except pages."

I think lots of people heard about them, perhaps even in detail. But I think ultimately the decision to bring them out from under wraps was a decision made by pages. I just explained why I believe this is the most plausible scenario.

"In fact the other pages, to my knowledge, did not see those IM's at all and were as shocked as everyone else when they came out."

Read the Sauer interview, which I've cited. And read all the things Loraditch has said. I think some pages were shocked, or pretended to be "shocked." And some weren't.

"Knowledge of the IMs moved outside the pages, current and former, into the realm of staff and into the hands of those who knew how and when to use this gift."

I think this is plausible speculation, but not the most plausible scenario. I've explained why.

But at least you're not suggesting that your scenario is a proven fact. That's what Clarice has been incessantly doing.

And by the way, "knowledge of the IMs" isn't exactly the same thing as possession of them, or permission to release them.

Cecil Turner

Rick,

I don't believe that I implied that they were all plants.

I don't believe there is evidence to support even one plant. (Not sayin' it couldn't be, but it looks a lot more like a post-facto witch hunt.) I think that's also bolstered by the timing, which would've been ripe by 2004 if it were in fact a politically-motivated sting from the get-go.

Dave,

The righty blogosphere is reaching a new low in this manner. And that's no small thing.

I note you still can't be bothered to respond to the simple question of whether or not you're jukeboxgrad. And since the trolling style (ad hominem abusive in nearly every post, generalized "liar liar" accusations, and demands for retractions after "proving" something wrong) is fairly distinctive . . .

Now, it seems to me that it's more than a bit deceptive for someone who's previously been banned from this site for abusive posts, returned under various pseudonyms and been banned again, to claim everyone else is a liar when showing up again under a different pseudonym. Want to clear that up for us?

Neo

Woa.

Looks like I misread the piece in my last post.
The page hired a criminal lawyer .. for what crime do you think ?

Dave

cathyf ------------- "Suppose a gay man who has never had any sort of sexual contact with an underage boy attempts to sign up as a boy scout leader"

The key question is not "are you gay." The key question is "do you have a history of hitting on minors." Foley obviously did, and that could have been known to anyone who cared to ask around. Hastert, Shimkus, Alexander, Reynolds and Boehner didn't care to ask around. Or maybe they did, and kept the answers under their hat.

Let me know if I've answered your boy scout question.

MayBee -------- "ummm...because as I said, that's how it seems to me."

OK, fair enough. I think intuition is perfectly fine, especially when labeled as such. I just didn't know if there were specific facts that I was missing. Thanks for answering.

millco88

I'm sorry, but isn't THE LIST we should all be concerned about the one containing the names of other representatives who are using the page program as their personal dating service?? Does anyone honestly believe Foley's the only member of Congress who was hitting on the pages??

Assuming THAT list contains more than the name of Mark Foley, doesn't it make the actions of the leadership more understandable??

Dave

boris --------------- "If someone is white and opposes white privlige is that saintly or hypocritical?"

"Gay rights" is not the same thing as "gay privilege." The latter would be, for example, if gay people were in charge and decided that straight people couldn't get married. After all, they have a terrible track record with divorce and adultery, and are a threat to the family.

Nice try.

TexasToast

Tom

Yep - one side will be lying if "the list" is published. But 99% of the democrats are not on either side here. The “sides” are much more narrow.

Look it as a battle of self-interest. Who has something to gain here? Who is more desperate?

Democrats?

I don’t see how they have a dog in this fight. The Republicans are doing a great job all by themselves losing this election. Corm would have been stupid to publish it. (I think he was stupid to publicize it).

Republicans?

You bet. The perfect excuse to blame the Foley mess on the gays.

Ex-GOP gay activist democrats?

********** Crickets **************

Well?

Specter
Hastert, Shimkus, Alexander, Reynolds and Boehner didn't care to ask around. Or maybe they did, and kept the answers under their hat.

Stating facts not in evidence again Dave? Liar, Liar.

The problem with the original review of the situation was simply a lack of...geee...what's it called?....oh, yea....evidence. Anecdotal evidence won't fly in DC (because the rumor mill is always spurning out new crap). The emails were non-explicit and not actionable. So where did that leave the Leadership? Were they supposed to hold hearings? Over emails? As far as we know, there were no actual complaints about illegal or abusive behavior at the time. Add to that the fact that the LA kid's parents did not want it to go any further...and where do you get? It gets dropped. Or would you prefer that they use Nifongian tactics by having someone in authority write a report after the fact....

I think another question needs to be asked. If the IMs did not come from the original recipients, is there enough information on them to track back into the internet sub-world to verify where they came from? It sounds like they were passed around quite a bit. Maybe we are seeing a revenge motive here. I'd really like to hear what the FBI forensics people are finding.....

Rick Ballard

Cecil,

That was a mistake on my part - "I don't think any were plants" would have expressed my intent more clearly. Right now my thinking is that we have one kid from LA who may well have been conducting a 'page revolt' because he found Foley revolting and two revolting kids who were opportunists with enough savvy to recognize (and perhaps engender or at least fertilize) incriminating evidence.

Jane

There's a big difference between my privacy being invaded by the government vs my privacy being invaded by people down the street who say some things about me that happen to be truthful.

You are a liberal joke Dave.

SunnyDay

I'm skipping over some posts, but has anyone figured out why Jordan Edmund needs a criminal defense attorney?

Rick Ballard

SunnyDay,

Perhaps someone explained the concept of "conspiracy" to him.

Jim in Chicago

Wow, reading this thread it's clear that Townhouse, or its sooperdooper top secret replacement lit the [moon]bat signal this week.

And lo, the moonies heed the call.

The dems internal polling must look disastrous with only a month to go before the election.

"It's the economy stupid" won't play, "culture of corruption" didn't work, the Iraq war's not the albatross the Dems had hoped for.

Now they're reduced to flinging anything and everything hoping something will stick.

And heck, they've even called ole jukie up from the minors.

Get those Canadian citizenship applications ready lefties. You'll need them in another month.

cathyf
I'm going to go out on a limb and say the "sick sick sick" was because he had heard Foley was gay or someone hit on pages (well, he says that last part). As I'm sure you know, some teen boys don't respond well when they think someone has pegged them as gay or bicurious.
This is something that I don't think anyone else has brought up. Hastert was a high school teacher and wrestling coach. As such, he has first hand experience with the violent, hysterical, outrageous over-reaction which a small but not insignificant minority of teenaged boys will exhibit when circumstances cause them to even think about the existence of homosexuals. Hastert may have had a student who was hounded to suicide by homophobic classmates. May have known a teacher who never did anything wrong but was mercilessly tormented by the Lord of the Flies crowd because they imagined that he was a faggot.

So there he is, House majority leader, who has been told that a 17-yr-old former page was "creeped out" by an email he received from Foley. Hastert, a guy with lots of experience with the thought processes of 17-yr-old males, has to have thought, "ok, how much of this is real and how much is this just the overactive imagination of a kid who has yet to outgrow his adolescent homophobia?" Everyone seems to agree that he asked the completely on-target question: "Were the emails sexual?"

My most relevant expertise comes from once being an 18-yr-old girl. Back in the day, we noticed the hysterical panicky homophobia that afflicted a lot of the boys to some degree or another. We discussed it among ourselves, and decided that it was weird and even a little creepy. Like, ya know, a guy you're not interested in makes a polite pass at you, you politely decline, what's your problem?

Cecil Turner

Yep - one side will be lying if "the list" is published. But 99% of the democrats are not on either side here. The “sides” are much more narrow.

That may be so, but the ones actively touting "the LIST
Operating since July of 2004, telling you the truth about hypocrisy in the gov't."
are obviously Democrats.

Dave

MayBee --------- "because 'gay rights' is a construct of the left to define their agenda as someone's 'rights' ."

I'm old enough to vividly remember the people who said that " 'civil rights' is a construct of the left to define their agenda as someone's 'rights'."

"I know I have to choose between parties because I don't agree in whole with either one of them"

Good point. But a relevant part of the picture is that lately gay-bashing has become such a prominent feature of GOP marketing. And the GOP reaction to the Foley story has gay-bashing written all over it, as Jon Stewart pointed out.

At a certain point it becomes hypocritical to embrace my enemies simply because they share my hate for the estate tax, for example. (That's a hypothetical: I don't hate the estate tax.)

Sue

Well?

A hole where water is stored.

You can tell from the tone of Corn's post who has the most to gain.

jwest

Put down the sexually explicit IMs and step back from the keyboard - at least for a few moments.

The Foley incident is only important in how it influences the midterm elections. In case people have forgotten (as the whole of the Washington press corps, pundits and politians seem to have) midterms are the exclusive domain of the bases. Although the politically active think everyone in the country is hanging on every detail, the great unwashed have lives far separate from this scandal.

As for the base, either democrat or republican, not one vote has changed. The chattering classes were aghast when a republican was elected in California as Duke Cunningham was being led off in handcuffs. In Massachusetts, a democrat can rape of barnyard full of animals on camera (as long as they are not “endangered species”) and be reelected consistently.

Polls in midterm elections are worst than worthless. Even in presidential elections the polls are inconsistent and inaccurate at best, constantly underestimating the republican side. In ’04, the consensus of polls underestimated Bush’s results in 37 states, while only 3 states came in with higher percentages than predicted for Kerry. Midterm predictions have always been less accurate.

Base voters may be driven by issues and party loyalty, but the most powerful motivation is when people believe they are being rolled. This incident could be just what the republicans needed to wake the sleeping giant.

millco88

Cathyf,

You know the reason for that, right?? It's because teenage guys aren't really used to actually turning down someone making a pass at them because there's always a possibility that something could happen if enough alcohol is involved.

jean

ok really off topic Dave are you Andrew Sullivan ? The tone and style seem similar

Cecil Turner

Right now my thinking is that we have one kid from LA who may well have been conducting a 'page revolt' because he found Foley revolting and two revolting kids who were opportunists with enough savvy to recognize (and perhaps engender or at least fertilize) incriminating evidence.

Okay, that matches my best guess as well (though that's speculation based on timing and content).

Dave

Syl ---------------- "How deeply did that Fla paper investigate?"

Syl is shocked, shocked to discover that our press often displays a deep streak of laziness. And that laziness even sometimes coincides with a desire to protect people in power (who just might be Republicans).

I think last November was a key milestone, when Hastert, Shimkus, Alexander, Reynolds and Boehner all basically did the hear-no-evil speak-no-evil routine. That set the story on a different trajectory. Pressure started to build, and it was going to go ka-boom sooner or later.

True, there was an unconscionable lack of fair play and professional courtesy displayed by all the parties who could have decided to hold all this until after the election. What would have been so wrong about that? What's the big hurry?

Sue

as Jon Stewart pointed out.

Well alright then. That settles it.

The Unbeliever

"Gay rights" is not the same thing as "gay privilege." The latter would be, for example, if gay people were in charge and decided that straight people couldn't get married.

So the institution of marriage, for the last couple thousands of years, is merely "heterosexual privilege"? Ye gods, at least pretend to be rational. Now you're not even bothering to hide your inability to accept facts which lie outside your ideological blinders.

Sue

Did I not read somewhere that the FBI investigated the emails this summer and found nothing to warrant further investigation?

SlimGuy

Just curious. If someone is gay and opposes gay rights, how is that not self-hating and hypocritical?

Posted by: Dave | October 05, 2006 at 07:32 AM

You draw the same conclusion the outers do that this is the only possible choice

Perhaps they support many other things done by the person they staff for and consider on balance they have made the right choice.

Also some gays may support gay right, but not gay marriage

boris
"If someone is white and opposes white privlige is that saintly or hypocritical?"

"Gay rights" is not the same thing as "gay privilege."

Says you.

If X opposes "Good for X" policy, then X is a hypocrite.

That claim is bogus. Clearly FUBAR misleading even. The point about apples and oranges applies to whether "Good for X" is described as "rights" or "privilege" also, not just X = white vs gay.

In the larger scheme the policy "Good for X" is not to be judged on the phoney, bogus charge of hypocrisy, but whether the policy is "Good in general" which has nothing to do with who supports or opposes it, which was your stupid intent.

MayBee

Ok Syl, they (Loraditch and J....) seem to have had a fight. This is back in March 2004

A poster says:
4) Instead of driving people away from the site, perhaps you should be looking at ways to bridge your closely held beliefs with the rest of the world. You and a select few share you beliefs. The website and positions within the organization should be open to all people, whether you agree with them or not.

Another poster says, what are you talking about. The response:

Joy128, what arthur was talking about in his part #4 is controversial fight between loraditch and j----. im or pm me if you wanna hear a fair version of it.

millco88

Dave,

Aren't you assuming that Foley is the ONLY member with a sexual affinity for pages?? No one can be that naive, can they??

The probable reason no one did anything except to tell Foley to cut it out was because if Foley fought it, Pandora's box would be opened and neither side was really sure what the fallout would be. That's the other shoe we're all waiting for -- how many other Congressional members have used the page program in that manner.

I don't care what party you support. If you find out your representative has been hitting on pages, male or female, enough people are going to get creeped out.

jwest

Dave,

Is this what you want? (Be careful what you wish for)

“I saw Congressman Smith (D)(Somestate) walking with the young page down a seldom-used portion of the hallway. He appeared to be showing a great deal of interest in what the page was saying, although I couldn’t hear exactly what was being discussed.”
“As the conversation ended, Congressman Smith reached out and touched the boy. The page moved away at that point, but I distinctly heard Mr. Smith say that he would see the boy later.”

Talk about a red flag.

Although the specifics of this incident shouldn’t be made public immediately, the Speaker of the House should hold a press conference to announce that “certain disturbing information” has come forward concerning Congressman Smith, and that the incident is being thoroughly investigated. Also, he should make a plea for anyone who has further information, or has suffered pedophilic harassment at the hands of Mr. Smith to come forward at this time.

The Unbeliever

True, there was an unconscionable lack of fair play and professional courtesy displayed by all the parties who could have decided to hold all this until after the election. What would have been so wrong about that? What's the big hurry?

Naivete might be cute in toddlers. When you apply it to politics as earnestly as Dave does, it's just pathetic.

cathyf
question is "do you have a history of hitting on minors." Foley obviously did, and that could have been known to anyone who cared to ask around.
I'll skip my usual lengthy reply and steal Specter's comment, since it fits here just as well:
Stating facts not in evidence again Dave? Liar, Liar.
Dave

Syl ---------- "I just don't see all these pages vindictive enough to expose this much just to get Foley. Speaking out, and in general terms, is certainly the level most of them are at."

I think different pages have different attitudes. It makes sense that they would be all over the map. I think it also makes sense that there would be a handful who would be deeply pissed at him, as a result of feeling personally violated and injured, and highly motivated to twist the knife any way they could.

Anyway, I appreciate the response and I respect your opinion. Now we're in the area of legitimate speculation, and I think there's lots of room for legitimate differences.

JM Hanes

Dave:
"Is that wrong? And if not, then what's the difference?"

Strange query from someone who has just faulted me for putative blindness to context -- especially when the original questions I posed were designed to flesh that context out. Neither of your analogies seem particularly useful, and both gratuitously imply a homophobic bias. In the first instance, perhaps you, yourself, should try substituting an older and younger woman. In the second, your question would only be apt if there were a corresponding contingent of closet heterosexuals. You also ignore the fact that the concept of outing as blackmail originated with folks like Aravois & Rogers, not me.

"I don't understand your attempt to explain why this is implausible."

It seems to me the problem is your unwillingness to entertain the idea that your theory is not the only plausible alternative. A scandal which could potentially alter the political balance in Congress has massive implications, yet you reject, if not condemn, questions about timing and motives out of hand. I certainly have no problem with you pointing to inaccuracies in the speculation we're all engaged in, quite the contrary, but you have hardly offered anything remotely like substantive evidence in support of your own. You, yourself, seem positively bent on ignoring the political angles here except as they reflect on Republicans.

"If someone is gay and opposes gay rights, how is that not self-hating and hypocritical?"

Considering the legal backlash that resulted from the court ruling in Massachusetts, such opposition could conceivably be politically astute rather than hypocritical, or could be realistic patience in biding one's time rather than self-hate. It's entirely possible that the fallout from a full-bore national controversy over gay marriage and the heavy handed political blackmail that has divided the gay community itself into opposing camps have actually set measurable progress toward full social acceptance back on its heels.

Dave

Pofarmer --------- "A Representative, after all,represents his constituents. How does that make somebody self hating?"

Good question. Here's my answer. Consider the following two scenarios.

A) Rep. ABC is openly gay. And maybe he also has a very praiseworthy lifestyle: in a stable committed partnership, with children. But he opposes gay marriage, and he explains the rationale for that position, and he explains his responsibility to represent his constituents.

B) Rep. XYZ pretends to be straight. Meanwhile, he sneaks around leading a secret life doing all sorts of things ordinarily considered anti-social, such as prostitution, promiscuity, and underage sex. Meanwhile, in his public life he is in the forefront of classic homophobic Bible-thumping gay-bashing.

Guess who I consider a self-hating hypocrite, and who I don't consider a self-hating hypocrite.

clarice feldman

It is impossible for Ross' scenario--that he printed the Mahoeny request for an investigation and the innocuous emails and overnight the IM's came to his attention and he confirmed them..unless someone had already gathered and saved them, knew the identities of the correspondents and their wherabouts--and the most likely candidates are Loraditch and J. Alexander.

What their motives could have been I don't know:
Money
Fame
Connections with Rogers
Connections with Dems
Connections with CREW

It is also possible that the IM's by Alexander were exploitive of Foley for personal advantage. There is no indication he is gay or that he in fact had any sexual relations with Foley. And it is likely that he shared that info with Loradtich who spilled the beans to Ross.
(BTW the I agree with cathyf about the 16 year old page's overreaction to the innocuous emails)

Sue

Guess who I consider a self-hating hypocrite, and who I don't consider a self-hating hypocrite.

I don't get it. Is that not a personal choice? I thought your party was all about personal choices?

Nevermind responding. I know the answer, I just wanted to tweak you. Personal choice is only a good thing when it is the same personal choice you think they should choose.

Dave

norm --------- "Anyone think that if Foley caved in to Rogers and voted the way Rogers, Corn, et al wanted him to vote, none of this would be in the media and Foley would still be in office, free to cyber with 17 year old former male pages?"

There's a corollary to that. What if Foley was a renegade R pissing off the leadership by voting the way "Rogers, Corn, et al wanted him to vote." What are the odds that Hastert et al would have let Foley get away with a slap on the wrist a year ago?

Pofarmer

Base voters may be driven by issues and party loyalty, but the most powerful motivation is when people believe they are being rolled. This incident could be just what the republicans needed to wake the sleeping giant.

Bingo!!!

I hope the lefties got their Diebold conspiracy theories ramped up!!!!

Dave

Ted ------------- "Foley is the real victim here."

Exactly. The kids were asking for it. Just like rape victims who shouldn't have been wearing atractive outfits.

Syl

Dave

And read all the things Loraditch has said.

I bet you dollars to donuts Loraditch had the IMs.

From the New York Times (quoted by Tom in this post):

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.

How does one 'see' these messages? Either they were printed out and he saw them, or he had received computer copies and they were on his machine...which seems more likely since he ran the Page Alumni program and a former page would email copies rather than sending a printout snail mail.

Now, of course, individual pages could have sent the stuff to ABC. But I doubt it. The IMs were sent together--from Loraditch's computer. Jordan could have done it himself. Maybe that's why he's lawyered up?

Dave, you've claimed there were possibly several sources for IM's not just one or two . If there were more than two it's even less likely that they all came in to ABC within the time frame they did. From all over the country every page involved was paying 100% of attention to the story and all decided simultaneously to sned ABC IM's?

I don't think so.

They all came from one source, that computer in DC.

And if the IMs were on this computer, it's more than likely the actually IMs were shown to various individuals besides just rumors going around.

And certain people who were shown these IMs knew how to convince someone who had access to them how and when to release them.

Pofarmer

B) Rep. XYZ pretends to be straight. Meanwhile, he sneaks around leading a secret life doing all sorts of things ordinarily considered anti-social, such as prostitution, promiscuity, and underage sex. Meanwhile, in his public life he is in the forefront of classic homophobic Bible-thumping gay-bashing.

Too bad you ain't really describing Foley.

Face it Dave, you got nuthin but a bunch of made up bull puckey.

jukeboxgrad

Yes, I post as Dave now, since everyone ignored anything I post under this handle because I've proved that I'm just an insulting partisan twat that shouldn't be taken seriously.

Happy now, Cecil? You outed me.

Can we get back to talking about the Republican Pedophiles now?

Specter

Funny...I don't know of any Republican Pedophiles that we have been talking about. Is Michael Jackson a Republican?

clarice feldman

Syl, I agree--Loraditch bundled them. (BTW in another post I confused Alexander with Jordan) but my point stands. I think this ex-page blogsite was the source for gathering all this gossip, including the IMs.Why? There are a number of plausible motives, butfor whatever reason it was the central gathering point of title tattle about house members.

Rick Ballard

Foley had a computer with all the IMs on it - and a staffer who is spinning like a top.

Sue

Face it Dave, you got nuthin but a bunch of made up bull puckey.

And forced outrage because...are you sitting down?...it was a...Republican. Oh the horrors. Just as they thought revealing Cheney's daughter's sexuality would hurt Bush/Cheney with the base, the have once again shot their wad, pun intended, and it was blanks.

Rick Ballard

"I post under this handle because I've proved that I'm just an insulting partisan twat"

Well, there's something upon which all concerned can agree.

Sue

Isn't jukebox also Katrina? And JayDee?

Neo

The IM's given to ABC didn't come off Jordan's pc, they came out of Loraditch's office pc.

I realize that these guys don't work as pages anymore, but putting this stuff on an office PC.
If I did this at my (private sector) job, I would be fired before I could say "boo." They would say it was "porn" and I would be gone.

Does the House have any rules (at least for employees .. not members) about hostile environment/sexual harassment ? Or is it just one big orgy ?

JM Hanes

Dave:

"I'm old enough to vividly remember the people who said that " 'civil rights' is a construct of the left to define their agenda as someone's 'rights'."

Sez you. Make that vividly imagine a convenient stawman.

SunnyDay

Guess who I consider a self-hating hypocrite, and who I don't consider a self-hating hypocrite.

Who cares, if he does his job???????? A Representative is a job. Not a religion.

Ed Shrock was my representative. We were all furious at what was done to him. His private life is his business, as long as he does his job representing us.

I have never heard one word condemning Ed Schrock, only condemnations of those who destroyed his life and career. Rogers is the sick one. As far as most reidents here were concerned, he could have kept his job, and been re-elected. He decided to try to spare his family, by resigning.

SlimGuy

There's a corollary to that. What if Foley was a renegade R pissing off the leadership by voting the way "Rogers, Corn, et al wanted him to vote." What are the odds that Hastert et al would have let Foley get away with a slap on the wrist a year ago?

Posted by: Dave | October 05, 2006 at 09:10 AM

Please stick with the issues at hand, we don't need you to muddy the waters with hypotheticals that bear no weight to the reality at hand.

Those that can be examined as plausable paths of how this really got from point a to point b for discussion and shakeout are fine, but those that go nowhere are only a wasted distraction

Jane

Personal choice is only a good thing when it is the same personal choice you think they should choose

And it they don't have precisely the same personal choices it's no problem outing them, or doing whatever is necessary to make an example of their "bad" personal choice. Cause they are all for choice, as long as it's their choice.

This thread is a study in hypocrisy. Watching liberals show their true colors while twisting themselves like pretzels is a true sight to see. And what is even better is that it is memorialized for all time.

Dave

Unbeliever ----------- "All we've seen from you thus far, Dave, is repeated attempts to ignore anything that doesn't fit your worldview"

It would be nice if you come up with something credible and material that I've "ignored." Unless you don't understand the difference between "ignore" and "disagree with."

"while assuming the worst intentions of everyone you view as a political opponent"

I assume good intentions on the part of everyone who is not a liar, and who does not bend over backwards to deny reality. In other words, I assume good intentions on the part of a small portion of this group.

"it's impossible for anything to be other than how you define it"

The facts are the facts. If you can show that my facts are wrong, then there's no time like the present. If you can't, then what you just said is nonsense.

"thus anytime a conservative says the word 'gay', you fly off the handle ranting about homophobia"

No. I fly off the handle ranting about homophobia when people pretend that the key issue is Foley's gayness.

"I don't know what threads you have been reading"

I've been reading threads that contain comments like this: "Andrew Sullivan participates in behavior ten times more lurid than Foley sending IM's." Of course that's from the same commenter who quoted at length from NARTH, an organization which takes the position that homosexuality is a psychological disorder.

"everyone on here has been arguing about the timing of the logs' release, the oversight responsibilities of Hastert, and the age of the page/ex-page."

Let me know how NARTH fits into that list.

"It is you who keeps bringing up the fact that the whole sordid mess was a gay affair"

No. It's the GOP that seeks to remind everyone it's a gay affair. That's exactly what they were doing when they quickly hid behind this defense: "we were afraid to go after him because we didn't want to be accused of gay-bashing."

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame