Foley Quits Amid Allegations of Email Sex Scandal

The Reverend Dobson, Drudge and Savage call the Foley matter a "prank", or "joke".


"As it turns out, Mr. Foley has had illicit sex with no one that we know of, and the whole thing turned out to be what some people are now saying was a -- sort of a joke by the boy and some of the other pages. "



http://mediamatters.org/items/200610060004

So where's that October surprise? It better be damned good.

When summer turns to autumn in election years, Democrats in Washington feel a premonitory sense of doom. This year, as in years past, the political climate suddenly worsened and things seemed to close in on them. There really wasn't any mystery about what was happening. Unlike the Wizard of Oz, the guy pulling all the levers doesn't hide behind a curtain. Karl Rove doesn't have to.

Foley's tawdry sexual banter, in other words, has only heightened the stakes for Karl Rove: Win, and he'll look better than ever; lose, and he'll look even worse. It's not quite Greek tragedy. But it would be an ironic and fitting coda if the legendary strategist who used Bill Clinton's behavior to "restore honor and dignity to the White House" in the person of George W. Bush were to end his career with a devastating loss, cinched by a scandal that was even seamier.

okie wrote:

Whats wrong with what I said, Bumble Bee?

I'd explain it to you if I thought it would make a difference in your thinking.

It won't.

BBB

I ask again, why doesn't anyone care that Jefferson is still in Congress? After all, Foley is gone. The only way I can explain it again is media bias. How come they aren't asking for Nancy Pelosi to resign in addition to Jefferson?

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

okie wrote:

Whats wrong with what I said, Bumble Bee?

I'd explain it to you if I thought it would make a difference in your thinking.

It won't.

BBB

I don't think you can explain it. In this world of political correctness, how can Hastert kick somebody out without proof there was a crime committed? He is not a crime investigative arm. If someone knew of a crime, whether it was Hastert or anyone else, then they should have reported it to authorities. I am not excusing Hastert if he overlooked crime, but the thing I am mystified by is why everyone else is given a pass, including all Democrats along with Republicans, if they knew crimes were being committed.

I ask again, why doesn't anyone care that Jefferson is still in Congress? After all, Foley is gone. The only way I can explain it again is media bias. How come they aren't asking for Nancy Pelosi to resign in addition to Jefferson?

snood wrote:

The Reverend Dobson, Drudge and Savage call the Foley matter a "prank", or "joke".


"As it turns out, Mr. Foley has had illicit sex with no one that we know of, and the whole thing turned out to be what some people are now saying was a -- sort of a joke by the boy and some of the other pages. "



http://mediamatters.org/items/200610060004

Straw man; the reports are that the IM's were a prank gone wrong - no allegation is made that the matter itself is/was a prank.

You may be satisfied, okie, that the Foley story is played out, but where there's smoke, there's fire. One awaits the first proof that Foley acted on his urges...

Hey, I thought personal lives were personal and should not matter? I agree he should be thrown out, but I am surprised at you libs getting all stirred up here about somebody's personal life???? I am really confused about you people now. I don't know where you stand on this issue. Please explain.

If the boys were older, and welcomed the attention, it would be a different story for me.

I've not really been in participating in this, partly for that reason. It's not just his personal life, though, when it involves 16-year-olds who he had power over. Their age and that power relationship are much more of a concern to me than their gender.

I was surprised to learn about the age of consent in D.C. -- I certainly think of 16-year-olds as children, and agree mostly with nimh's point stated at some point that it doesn't make sense to consider the same person a child in one state and an adult in another for these purposes. There is some basic "too young to be treated that way" standard that seems to apply.

At any rate, I think that a consensual adult relationship between equals should be far less of a big deal than it usually is in politics (regardless of party). I think things that are possibly criminal and at least a flagrant abuse of trust and power are legitimately condemned (regardless of party).

sozobe wrote:

I've not really been in participating in this, partly for that reason. It's not just his personal life, though, when it involves 16-year-olds who he had power over. Their age and that power relationship are much more of a concern to me than their gender.

I was surprised to learn about the age of consent in D.C. -- I certainly think of 16-year-olds as children, and agree mostly with nimh's point stated at some point that it doesn't make sense to consider the same person a child in one state and an adult in another for these purposes. There is some basic "too young to be treated that way" standard that seems to apply.

At any rate, I think that a consensual adult relationship between equals should be far less of a big deal than it usually is in politics (regardless of party). I think things that are possibly criminal and at least a flagrant abuse of trust and power are legitimately condemned (regardless of party).

Others will, of course, disagree that gender in this case does not makes a very big difference, but I don't; as to the substance of his transgressions. It does make a very big difference in terms of media coverage because there is no way anyone can avoid the irony and (as some would argue the hypocrisy) of a conservative Republican being found out as a homosexual with an obvious penchant for post-pubescent boys.

If the objects of Foley's attention had been female pages, the transgression would have been no less and no worse, but I don't think the story would not have been quite as steamy.

As it happens, Foley was not much of a social-conservative. He was undoubtedly a conservative but not one in the vein of a Brownback, Inhofe, or Stearns, who each received 100 ratings by the Family Research Council, Eagle Forum, and Christian Coalition.

In comparison, Foley had an average rating of 82 which made him 176th on the list of rated representatives and actually below at least one Democrat, Lucas of Kentucky.

Whether or not Foley was a "true" social-conservative has no more bearing on the extent of his transgression than the gender of his targets, but it is interesting to see how both factors are treated in the media.

It is also interesting to consider that if an adult female has sex with a 16 year old male, the general reaction runs from "ho-hum" to "way to go kid!" If the genders are reversed we tend to have a much harsher view of the adult and an entirely different view of the status of the victim. It appears that what applies to Adult Male - Underage Female affairs almost applies to Adult Male - Underage Male affairs. I don't know though, perhaps in Gay communities the young homosexual male is getting the same high fives as the young heterosexual male.

I don't think we are going to get serious consideration of the issue because of the politics involved, but somehow I doubt that most people will see homosexual underage boys in consentual sexual affairs as having the same victim status as underage females in the similar affairs with the same degree of consent.

What, though if the affair could in no way be considered consentual?

Adult male imposes himself on underage heterosexual female
Adult male imposes himself on underage heterosexual male
Adult male imposes himself on underage homosexual male
Adult female imposes herself on underage heterosexual male
Adult female imposes herself on underage heterosexual female
Adult female imposes herself on underage homosexual female

How would these various permutations rank on the public's outrage meter? Despite the fact that each situation is essentially identical when it comes to the fact that an adult is imposing his or her sexual will on a child, I somehow doubt that the public would rank each as equally repugnant.

Our thinking on sex is quite complex.

I've not really been in participating in this, partly for that reason. It's not just his personal life, though, when it involves 16-year-olds who he had power over. Their age and that power relationship are much more of a concern to me than their gender.

I was surprised to learn about the age of consent in D.C. -- I certainly think of 16-year-olds as children, and agree mostly with nimh's point stated at some point that it doesn't make sense to consider the same person a child in one state and an adult in another for these purposes. There is some basic "too young to be treated that way" standard that seems to apply.

At any rate, I think that a consensual adult relationship between equals should be far less of a big deal than it usually is in politics (regardless of party). I think things that are possibly criminal and at least a flagrant abuse of trust and power are legitimately condemned (regardless of party).

Don't know about the public's, but as someone who has worked with offenders originally, (four years) and children who have been sexually abused and adults who were sexually abused as children for the past 17 and a half years I can tell you that such categories do not mean a brass razoo to me...........what matters is the individual's experience of that abuse, and a big factor in that (if it was not very violent physically) is the degree of trust that the abuser has violated, as well as a plethora of other things.

Quote of the Day
Focus on the Family's James Dobson on the Mark Foley scandal:
"As it turns out, Mr. Foley has had illicit sex with no one that we know of, and the whole thing turned out to be what some people are now saying was a -- sort of a joke by the boy and some of the other pages."