Republican Congressman Sends Sex Messages to Underage Boys

How ignorant I can be?

 

No, he is not married.

 

Haven't read through the whole thread, but this re-enactment is hilarious!

http://www3.youtube.com/watch?v=B-nBWZD6fbI&mode=related&search=

 

It is also funny that they are blaming Democrats for holding and leaking the story right before election, when ABC news has already said that the story was leaked from the GOP side of the aisle.

 

Not to mention the fact that if the dems did have the story why didn't they use it during the 04' PRESIDENTIAL election?

 

Blogger reposts item 'outing' boy in Foley scandal, claimed he's of age

RAW STORY
Published: Wednesday October 4, 2006

The blog Passionate America has revealed the identity and published a photograph of an alleged victim of disgraced Rep. Mark Foley in a post that was pulled and later re-posted with additional information.

RAW STORY can verify that the young man in question is not the Congressional page from the emails that originally surfaced; with that in mind, a direct link to the Passionate America post is not provided here.

RAW STORY has learned that the recipient of the Foley emails is currently 17 (and was 16 at the time of the correspondence).

Passionate America contends that the young man they identified took part in some of the instant message conversations obtained by ABC news. In those messages, the boy explicitly identified himself as being under the age of 18.

If the boy was over the age of 18 at the time of the messages, Foley's communication with him would likely still be considered criminal. Sex predator legislation is generally written bearing in mind that law enforcement sting operations rely on undercover officers pretending to be minors.

However, even if he is now 21, the man identified could still have been as young as 16 at the time of the messages. ABC has stated that they are in possession of chat logs from as much as five years back.

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Blogger_outs_boy_in_Foley_scandal_1004.html

 

Outing The Pages

by tristero

There's a huge...hullabaloo this morning over the outing of at least one page by the extreme right and the possible publication of the apparently gay Congressional aides named on The List obtained by David Corn. This should surprise no one.

The rightwing really senses imminent defeat and they will do literally anything they think they can get away with to prevent it. Hence, the release of the name of the page under the pretext that he was actually not a minor when the emails/ims were sent. In fact, that's a deliberate lie, spread to sow confusion of the he-said-she-said variety. Not only do lies of this sort dislocate the truth to the liar's advantage, they slow down legitimate investigations as the lies have to be researched and debunked. We've seen this strategy many times before from the right. In Rathergate, a lie about typewriter fonts turned out to be highly successful, buying the rightwing enough time to exploit other objections that were more plausible and decisively turn the topic away the important subject: Bush's dereliction of duty, his drunkeness, and his cowardice.

In the Foley case, it clearly is the hope that by confusing and slowing down the story, evidence of Democratic complicity in the leaking of the story will eventually appear which will again enable Republicans to change the subject and accuse the Dems of vicious campaign dirty tricks (so far, Predatorgate seems to be entirely and stubbornly an intra-Republican scandal).

Also, it may seem paradoxical but the outing of the names and the accompanying lies actually is an attempt to suppress as much real information as possible. Knowing that the extreme right will post your name and your picture and then lie about you all over the internets is a strong incentive to shut up if you were the victim of sexual harassment by Republicans. I suspect their tactic will be extremely effective.

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/

 

This whole situation is karma for trying to exploit the christian vs. homosexuality debate for political purpose as the republicans did in the last election. They put gay marriage on the hot seat in order to attract conservative moralists to get out and vote for them and now a homosexual is holding their party hostage. God works in mysterious ways doesn't he?

Meanwhile the war in Iraq is a travesty and is going to further isolate the middle east, our borders are not secure and who knows what is getting through the ports everyday, the moralists ignore homelessness and poverty, unwanted children have no person to adopt them and health insurance is still hard to get and at the mercy of pharmaceutical companies.

Are some people conserving money for the next war and their morals for the next life? This country really needs a new identity.

 

Even if one was 18 (and it doesn't look like that was the case), it changes nothing as there was more than one boy... Well, it does give those who value repub control above all else a pretend straw to grasp but really, the evidence seems to be overwhelming about Foley's behavior. And remember, as bad as Foley's actions were, the current story is not about one 50-something Congressman who targeted boys, but about the people that covered up for him and enabled him to continue to abuse his position.

 

and on a related note, if the n.y. times is such a bush-hating liberal rag why the hell did they sit on the bush illegal wiretapping story during the 04 election?

 

the IM exchanged happened while he was underage and above age. so when the drudgereport headline screams FAMOUS IM EXCHANGE WAS WITH 18 YEAR OLD he is correct, but conveniently leaves out the part that says the exchanged started while he was underage.

he leaves that little crucial tidbit out until the last line of the article, knowing that most americans are too apathetic to bother to read any further than the headline.

On Tuesday ABC news released a high-impact instant message exchange between Foley and, as ABC explained, a young man "under the age of 18."

ABC headlined the story: "New Foley Instant Messages; Had Internet Sex While Awaiting House Vote"

But upon reviewing the records, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned, the young man was in fact over the age of 18 at the time of the exchange.

A network source explains, messages with the young man and disgraced former Congressman Foley took place before and after the 18th birthday.

 

Wow... you know it must be bad if the House activates the Ethics Committee which has been castrated since the late 90's.
___________

 

From Fox news...

Internal Poll Suggests Hastert Could Devastate GOP

WASHINGTON — House Republican candidates will suffer massive losses if House Speaker Dennis Hastert remains speaker until Election Day, according to internal polling data from a prominent GOP pollster, FOX News has learned.

"The data suggests Americans have bailed on the speaker," a Republican source briefed on the polling data told FOX News. "And the difference could be between a 20-seat loss and 50-seat loss."

Most GOP lawmakers have stood by Hastert, pending a full airing of the facts in his handling of the Mark Foley affair, in which the former Florida representative was caught exchanging salacious messages with teen pages in Congress. The new polling data, however, suggests that many voters already have made up their minds.

The GOP source told FOX News that the internal data had not been widely shared among Republican leaders, but as awareness of it spreads calculations about Hastert's tenure may change. The source described the pollster who did the survey as "authoritative," and said once the numbers are presented, it "could change the focus" on whether the speaker remains in power.

While internal GOP polls show trouble for Republicans, the newest AP/Ipsos poll also showed that half of likely voters say the Foley scandal will be "very or extremely important" when it comes time to vote on Nov. 7. By nearly a 2-1 ratio, voters say Democrats are better at combating corruption.

The same pollster who provided the gloomy news on Hastert's effect on GOP candidates nationwide did send out an advisory on Tuesday to rank-and-file Republicans that they might consider canceling appearances with Hastert in their districts. Hours later, Rep. Ron Lewis of Kentucky announced he was canceling a fundraiser scheduled for next week where Hastert was supposed to be the headliner.

http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,218043,00.html

 

dems should work hard to drive this point to everyone from now thru 08

 

You mean She?

 

Q:...this morning in the Tribune you were reported as saying that people who want to see this thing blow up are ABC News and a lot of Democratic operatives, people funded by George Soros. Are you maintaining Mr. Speaker that this story was fueled by political operatives?

HASTERT:On that point, I only know what I've seen in the press and what I've heard. There's no ultimate, real source of information, but that's what I've read. And that's what I've heard in the press.

And so the fact is: We've turned this whole thing over to the FBI for us to try to find out what happened. And that's what we want to do. And any member of Congress that is involved in this or any staffer needs to comply and the results will be there.
___________

Hastert's throwing stuff out there hoping something, anything will stick. And note regarding Dems manipulating this from the start:

George Soros? Please. Hastert's the one who first mentioned Soros and now claims he saw it in the press. Ugh.

 

You know it's never the scandal that brings down the party, people are just people...


It's the freaking cover up that turns good men into scoundrels!

 

It??



Keep D&D Civil.

 

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion...ct05,0,1301878.column?coll=la-home-commentary



Jonah Goldberg: Foley Flap Highlights Dems' Hypocrisy
Where was the left's furor over the Clinton sex scandals of the '90s?
October 5, 2006


THE DEMOCRATS prayed for an October surprise and, like manna from heaven, a hypocritical, sexually disturbed Florida Republican dropped into their laps. They looked at the cyber-stalking ephebophile and said, "Behold, this is good."

Overnight, Nancy Pelosi has emerged as the nation's soccer grandmom, disgusted with the GOP leadership's alleged partisan coverup of a sex "predator" and "pedophile." (Foley may or may not be a predator, but pedophiles don't dig post-pubescent teens; ephebophiles do.)


Almost as instantaneously, Democratic candidates denounced their opponents for taking money from Foley, as if acceptance of such funds constituted support for pederasty.

Now, let me be clear. I carry no water for the House GOP. Less than a month ago, in these very pages, I wrote that I thought it would probably be a good thing if the Republicans lost the House. So, I'm hardly inclined to rally to their flag because of their handling of this Foley mess. But let me make a prediction: Despite the Crucible-like moral panic sweeping Washington right now, this will backfire on Democrats, liberals and the gay left.

Self-described progressives are great at whipping up a moral frenzy when it serves their purposes, and hilariously indignant when Moral Majority types return fire in kind. Remember the national bout of St. Vitus' dance over sexual harassment in the late 1980s and early 1990s? Liberals made sexual harassment their signature issue, rending their clothes and gnashing their teeth over Sens. John Tower and Bob Packwood and Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas, among others. The puritanical zeal of these inquisitions cannot be exaggerated.

And then came Bill Clinton, who was, by any fair measure, a worse womanizer than Thomas or the rest of them. The Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit led, inexorably, to revelations of alleged rape and scandalous behavior with an intern. Forced to choose between power and principle, liberals and feminists held an impromptu fire sale on principles.

Whereas once feminists insisted that "women don't make these things up," accusations of rape were dismissed instantaneously. Whereas once zero tolerance was the rule ("no means no"), feminist deity Gloria Steinem suddenly advanced a one-free-grope rule for powerful men. Whereas once even the appearance of impropriety was unacceptable, feminists suddenly argued that everyone should lighten up. Former Sen. Carol Moseley Braun, elected in 1992 — the "Year of the Woman" — as part of the anti-Thomas "backlash," argued that female interns should count themselves lucky in the Clinton White House. After all, she said, "30 years ago, women weren't even allowed to be White House interns."

Now, it would be unfair to suggest that liberals have been clamoring for gays to have an unfettered right to hit on teenage boys and are only reversing themselves out of partisan opportunism. Although the fact that liberals hardly objected to Democratic Rep. Gerry Studds' continued service in the House for 13 years after he unapologetically admitted to having had actual sex with a teen page — as opposed to the less harmful cyber variety — and after an investigation revealed his advances were not always invited does cast a harsh light on those now screeching about Foley being a "sexual predator."

But it is fair to say liberals aren't thinking things through. Democratic strategist Bob Beckel suggested this week that the mere fact Foley is gay should have "raised questions" about his friendships with pages. If Foley were a Democrat and GOP spinners suggested gays are automatically suspect as predators, the now-silent Human Rights Campaign and other gay rights groups would go ballistic.

What liberals don't understand is that social conservatives actually believe their moral rhetoric, even when it's politically inconvenient. That's why GOP Rep. Bob Livingston of Louisiana had to resign when his marital infidelities became public during the Clinton impeachment, much to the chagrin of Democrats who wanted to advance the "everybody does it" defense of President Clinton. And that's why vast numbers of social conservatives now want Speaker J. Dennis Hastert's head on a pike.

Meanwhile, the only moral lapse that reliably and consistently offends all liberals collectively is hypocrisy. As Howard Dean declared on "Meet the Press" last year: "Everybody has ethical shortcomings. We ought not to lecture each other about our ethical shortcomings." But he continued: "I will use whatever position I have in order to root out hypocrisy." This is a remarkably convenient principle insofar as it can indict only people with actual principles.

Fanning the flames of righteous fervor over Foley will probably reap electoral benefits for Democrats. But the time will come when something like the "Foley standard" will be inconvenient to Democrats. In response, liberals will hold another fire sale. And yet, they will be stunned again when people claim the Democrats don't stand for anything.