Foley - Who gets to claim him?

It looks like this Foley case will be the democrat's Monika Lewinsky. What a shame that voters seem to be driven more by emotional scandals than by actual government policy failures, but I guess that's just the way it is.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jared2 @ Oct 5 2006, 11:55 AM) [snapback]328495[/snapback]</div>

A bit off topic, but here's one bit of news that's getting some but not much coverage lately.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tleonhar @ Oct 5 2006, 03:03 PM) [snapback]328567[/snapback]</div>

Really, really disgusting.

It brings to mind the poem by Yeats:

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(The Amazing Arthur @ Oct 5 2006, 01:28 AM) [snapback]328347[/snapback]</div>

Fox "News"- unfair and imbalanced!

 

Wow, thanks for the screenshot. Has anyone heard if faux has had anything to say about this? You would think they would have gotton a ton of emails on this.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tleonhar @ Oct 5 2006, 04:01 PM) [snapback]328638[/snapback]</div>

According to Countdown last night, Fox had not said anything about it (as of last night), and they removed the banner in re-runs of the piece.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jared2 @ Oct 5 2006, 09:55 AM) [snapback]328495[/snapback]</div>

If this mess hadn't spun out of control it would have seemed like it was contrived just to get our collective minds off of Woodward's new book which is aparantly not flattering to junior, or all the increased violence in Iraq, or the outrageous debt that is mounting, or the incompetence level in DC. But noooo, once again the issue which affects the fewest of us directly is forefront (like tax cuts at that time, which took our minds off of a local coup d'etat).

 

Being gay has *nothing* to do with an unhealthy interest in children and young adults.

Nothing.

The perpetuation of this myth is absolutely sickening.

As far as who gets to claim him, my humble answer would be, all of us. Once someone is under the employment of our government, I think we all must accept blame....whomever is responsible for the act(s).

 

As far as I can tell, from what we know so far, no laws have been broken. The emails were pretty tame, and no cause for alarm on the face of them since a prior relationship as boss-employee existed. The content of the emails, prior to the IM text surfacing, really doesn't look that bad to me. I heard today that the salacious IMs were to a former page who was, at the time of the IMs, 18 years old. If that's true, no law has been broken, and the situation isn't much different from any 50 year old that goes after a 18 year old "hard body".

So from a legal standpoint, it doesn't look like Mr. Foley can be prosecuted.

From a moral standpoint, it looks like Mr. Foley was leveraging his position of power and opportunity to engage in consensual sexual discussions with a man (or perhaps underage teen) he probably wouldn't have a chance with if he were a plumber instead of a Congressman. I think that's reprehensible from a sexual harassment standpoint, but its the same reason Jesse James gets Sandra Bullock and I don't have a chance. Power and prestige always gets you favor. If the page were still employed, even if 18, then the sexual harrassment angle really comes up. Like Phillip Crane, Bill Clinton, and the others that play this game, its morally reprehensible and sexual exploitation when a person in a power relationship leverages that relationship to gain sexual favor, even if that sexual favor is consensual. Not illegal, but from my standpoint, morally reprehensible.

What I don't get is that men, generally, think its akin to a lottery win when a 16 year old boy sleeps with someone like Debra LaFavre. We would have loved the opportunity when we were that age. If you're 16 and gay, is it "traumatic" to have a powerful Congressman talking sex with you or is it a lottery win? My understanding is that the parents objected to the attention Mr. Foley was giving their son after he left DC. They are being responsible parents.

Is our failure to even think in these terms evidence of our anti-gay bias?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Oct 5 2006, 07:10 PM) [snapback]328726[/snapback]</div>

We must be in alternate universes because the kind of stuff I've read about Foley and the pages is disgusting, even the stuff that happened while the pages were pages, not after.

Here it is again: another attempt to change a child predator issue into a gay issue.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Oct 5 2006, 06:22 PM) [snapback]328751[/snapback]</div>

Here's where I think we have a disagreement. I don't think an adult who seduces a teen of 15 or 16 is a "child predator". The law doesn't either; in California, different charges are brought for any lewd activity with a "child under 14" than with a teen. Typically, sex with a 15 or 16 year old is prosecuted only if the older person is at least 5 years older. Obviously Mr. Foley, at over 50, is pretty disgusting hooking up with a 16 year old, and would be prosecuted if they had physical contact (I'm not sure if sexual talk with a minor is a crime in either Florida or DC.) At 17 years old and 364 days, they might bring charges. The next day its a normal "trophy wife" Hollywood relationship.

I've read the emails I could find on line, and they are not bad at all. Its a stretch to try and make them sexual. But if you have a link to them that shows them as more than that, I'm interested in seeing them.

I understand the IMs, which just surfaced this week, are explicit and sexual in nature and pretty disgusting. I haven't read them (anyone have a link? I haven't googled it yet). I heard a report today that the IMs were made with an 18 year old, a former page who served with Mr. Foley, but of adult age when the IMs were made. I haven't verified that, but if true, I think this whole affair falls into the realm of appealing to anti-gay sentiments, just as the attacks on Barney Frank were, at their core, anti-gay (he was with young men of the age of consent; if they were "blonde bimbos" no one would have said a thing because fat, ugly, old Congressmen have been sexually exploiting young women since the 1800s).

What two adults decide to do, even if one worked for the other one when they were a minor, is none of our business. I can understand the Republicans kicking him out of Congress for it ... after all, they want to make sure he doesn't marry one of his former pages, so having a gay man in a leadership role with the Page program is tantamount to approving of gay Scout leaders. But I don't think there will be a criminal charge made against him unless something other than "internet sex talk" comes up.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Oct 5 2006, 10:48 PM) [snapback]328801[/snapback]</div>

Yeah then for sure we disagree.

As for the law, it depends on the state or states involved, and the specific correspondences and actions he took with the pages. We don't have enough information to know if he broke the law. He certainly abused his position as mentor to those kids.

 

I personally believe the issue is not a matter of breaking the law. It's a matter of breaking the confidence of a mentor/mentoree relationship. But what's really disgusting in my opinion is the hypocriticalness of it all since Foley was so outspoken against Clinton who was in a similar predicament. That and the way for the party leadership to try to sweep the whole affair aside for the sake of an election.

Now, it gets even uglier when Faux news lies to their viewers about Foley being a democrat and labeling him so in words under his picture. Also, I find it impossible to believe that anyone straight or gay would send such salacious messages but never act on them. Smells like coverup to me.

What I find most disturbing of all is that this minor event takes the eye off the real problems like outrageous debt, Woodward's new book which is aparantly very incriminating against the current administration, the increased killings in Iraq, retired generals flaming the way the war is being handled and the huge increase in terrorists since 9/11.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ Oct 6 2006, 11:58 AM) [snapback]328950[/snapback]</div>

So Fox news actually labeled Foley a Democrat. This is very revealing. It shows exactly how stupid Fox news believes its viewers are - the scary thing is they are right.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jared2 @ Oct 6 2006, 11:10 AM) [snapback]328958[/snapback]</div>

If Faux can call Foley a Democrat, I can call Foley straight. So there

 

Now Hastert is blaming George Soros and Bill Clinton.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/st...1888719,00.html

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(larkinmj @ Oct 5 2006, 04:45 PM) [snapback]328627[/snapback]</div>

Foley is a Democrat, and has always been a Democrat. I love big brother!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Oct 5 2006, 10:48 PM) [snapback]328801[/snapback]</div>

Actually, this is perfect, now they can kick him out for being gay and not for abusing the mentor relationship with which he was entrusted. Not to mention his somewhat, ummmm, warped view of what constitutes an appropriate intra-office relationship.

So, who has he 'been gay' with? Or is he a non-practising homosexual?

Actually, sounds to me like he's bisexual, or 'bi-questioning' as the new term is out here, which means he's on the way to being homosexual but hasn't yet relinquished all of his ties with the 'other' team. Or maybe it's just a 'phase' he's going through, before he comes to his heterosexual senses?

Unfortunately, the term 'bisexual' isn't nearly as politically and socially charged as gay, soo...he's gay. It's official!!

America'sissues over human sexuality are absolutely comical. And, well, perhaps a bit juvenile, too.

Fortunately, we still have violence, which can serve as a release of our repressed sexual anxiety.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Beryl Octet @ Oct 6 2006, 03:20 PM) [snapback]329099[/snapback]</div>

Odd. That has a familiar ring.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Oct 5 2006, 08:48 PM) [snapback]328801[/snapback]</div>

Here are a couple of links:

PageOneQ | Mark Foley instant message chats with Congressional page

ABC News READER DISCRETION STRONGLY ADVISED: Foley's Exchange With Underage Page