Posted on 10/04/2006 9:51:32 AM PDT by truthfinder9
The Democrats finally have their issue. Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla., resigned his seat in the House of Representatives Friday after news leaked that he had sexually harassed an underage male congressional page. Foley repeatedly e-mailed and instant messaged the page, revoltingly asking him to undress, to measure his genitals with a ruler, to list details regarding frequency and method of masturbation, and to tell Foley when he was aroused. "[I'd] love to slip [your shorts] off you … and [grab] the one-eyed snake," Foley messaged the teen.
Why repeat these perverse details? To demonstrate that House Republicans were not simply negligent in failing to investigate allegations regarding Foley's pedophilia – they were downright malfeasant. When a 16-year-old page informed top House Republicans that Foley had e-mailed him and asked for a picture, the Republicans did nothing. When Republican officials confronted Foley over the e-mails, Foley explained that they were innocent mentoring – and Republicans did nothing.
Trusting Foley at his word was inexcusable. If Foley had contacted a female page asking for her picture, there is no doubt he would have been grilled. House Republicans should have known better than to trust Foley here. Foley has been accused of closet homosexuality since his entry into politics; studies show that homosexuals are disproportionately prone to pedophilia. The fact that Foley had contacted a male page for his photograph should have set warning bells ringing across Capitol Hill.
But Republicans did nothing. Perhaps it was out of a sincere hope that Foley was not a closet homosexual; perhaps it was out of a disreputable hope that Foley's sickening behavior would go unnoticed until after the 2006 midterm elections. In either case, this information should have been investigated months ago – and Foley should already be sitting in a jail cell.
Democrats are surely correct to bludgeon House Republicans with the Foley scandal. Nonetheless, their outrage seems somewhat incongruous when we take into account their moral belief system. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who labeled House Republicans' behavior here "abhorrent," is a vocal opponent of parental consent laws with regard to abortions for underage girls. This is the same Democratic Party that repeatedly endorsed homosexual page-molester Rep. Gerry Studds, D-Mass., even after his affair with a 17-year-old male page had been revealed. This is the same party that consistently defended Bill Clinton, calling his affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky a private matter.
Democrats cannot condemn Foley for his proclivity for 16-year-old boys; they are the party that supports both homosexuality and reduced age of consent. Democrats cannot condemn Foley for his exploitation of Capitol Hill employees; they are the party that calls such exploitative imbalance-of-power situations "matters of personal choice."
On what moral basis do Democrats condemn Foley? They have no basis for moral outrage, since they have championed the destruction of traditional morality for decades. Instead, they condemn Foley and the Republicans for hypocrisy. Foley, when he wasn't spending his time chasing teenage boys, pushed for legislation to crack down on child pornography. House Republicans, when they weren't busy ignoring Foley's scummy behavior, pushed for legislation to uphold traditional values. The big sin here, according to the social left, is that Foley and the Republicans tried to bolster antiquated sexual mores while simultaneously bucking them in personal life. Were Mark Foley a liberal Democrat from San Francisco, liberals would be hard-pressed to spot a problem with his behavior.
But Republicans should not have been. The Republican Party is the party supposedly dedicated to those antiquated value systems that made this country great. It should not have been difficult for Republicans to identify the problems with Foley's behavior: pedophilia, exploitation, and yes, homosexuality. And yet, because the Republican Party has become infected with either the unchecked will to wield power or the milquetoast tolerance of the social left, House Republicans did nothing. Shame on them.
"somewhat incongruous"? LOL!!!
Try "absolutely hypocritical".
I'll give writer the benefit of the doubt that they're conspicuously understating the obvious. Of course, the nuance will be lost on neoliberals.
If he was a Democrat, he'd be getting his rocks off every night with 16 year old boys rather than just IM-ing them lurid text.
Sad
I hope the author, and other like-minded Republicans, are prepared to deal with the fallout if the course of action they think Hastert should have taken is actually adopted. They are basically saying that every contact a homosexual has with a young male, whether sexual or not,should be investigated and punished. Do they really believe the public will back this? Are they prepared for the onslaught of homophobia allegations? Do they think this will help with independents? Like it or not (and I don't) homosexuality is accepted in our society and in our government. Association among homosexuals and males, even young males, is not illegal. When the first emails were uncovered Foley was spoken to and told to stop the legal but suspicious activity. He said he would. To have done anymore would be to treat Foley as a pervert because he was homosexual. If the Republicans want to accept this as the correct stance fine, than they ought to purge the party of all homosexuals.
I've been wondering how N.O.W. feels about the Democrat attack on those freeing women in the Middle East to not be executed, vote, attend school, choose their dress, etc.
Perhaps a unusual suggestion here....but why not let Foley come right back into the campaign...announcing himself back into the race....as a democrat? The ballots are done...you can't change this part...but he could shake up Florida for decades by announcing a party change and saying that the Democrats would readily accept a gay in congress. Even if he were joking in the spoof...he might still win, and just resign on day one and let Jeb Bush appoint someone to fill the slot. There is nothing to lose in this...and alot of people would think for a minute....and agree that a democrat gay guy is ok...thus assuring his reelection.
He was just a few years ago.
Foley is an assumed name for Bill Clinton. He groped girls half his age back then, and the Democrats didn't blink an eye, defended him to the wall, and claimed it really didn't matter because it was "just all about sex."
Also, there'd be a book deal in the works already, and D's would charge that the pages were Young Republicans.
If Foley was a dem, the story would be "just about sex" and the Republicans would be homophones who are afraid of sexuality.
The MSM would be handing out passes to any liberal they could find, and at best this would be a one day story about uptight conservatives and "everyone does it" and what's the big deal?
We would also be told how much an investigation would cost to look into the issue and the young man in question would be looked at with doubt -- did he come from a broken home? Is he unstable? Was Foley the dem just trying to help him? Did the child really come on to him?
Yep, the MSM would give a pass - and reporters would state how they would be thrilled to have someone like Foley come on to them... Ohhhh, they would love to wear the knee pads of Monica...
Any subsequent questions "we refer you to discuss that with Mr. Foley." Also: "Like all election seasons, democrats are going to concentrate on sleazy smear campaigns and trying to scare everyone with lies and misery. Republicans are here to discuss the issues that effect this country going forward. "
If Foley had been a Dem, he would have followed the standard practice of past Dems in sex scandals and remained in office, with his fellow Dems circling the wagons around him to protect him. They would have used the excuses that he'd never written any of the pages while they were in Washington, but only wrote them after they had returned home. The Instant Messages (and we still don't know who released those to the press or if they're even real), would have never been seen. As a Democrat, he would have been returned to the House without any problem.
I'm not going to ask how you know those terms.
If he were a Democrat, we'd be calling for the resignation of every Democrat in Congress who know about his activities and covered it up.
Rush is reporting a story about an ex-page named Beck Hamon making comments about Foley. This guy was once a Republican, turned Democrat, who worked in the Clinton White House and most recently in the Kerry campaign. He's claiming Republicans knew about Foley's emails 11 years ago. Rush is questioning why he didn't come forward 11 years ago with the story. But the connection with the Clinton's and Kerry is definitely something to keep in mind.
Me either. I worked for 23 years in NY state prisons, saw all kinds of things, and I don't even know what those terms mean. Of course I've been retired for three years, so they could be new gay jargon.
Is it possible you are here for disingenuous reasons?
They could be. I'm not up on that, not being that way inclined.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.