Alarming News

September 29, 2006

It’s a bad, bad year

Congressman Foley (R, FL) Submits Resignation to Congress

He was sending sexually explicit emails to a 16-year old male page.


Posted by Karol at 04:01 PM |
Technorati Tags:

woo hooo

Posted by: Not Dawn Summers at September 29, 2006 at 4:13 pm

Power corrupts.

Posted by: Joe Grossberg at September 29, 2006 at 4:52 pm

There had been rumors about Foley’s sexuality as early as the 2004 Senate campaign when he was expected to make a run at the GOP nod but didn’t though nothing about a taste for underage boys ever came out.
What really bothers me about this is Foley did a lot of good work against child porn and did a lot of good work on college safety issues. While he drove me crazy on certain issues (Foley is pro choice and voted against fast track), he was one of my favorite moderate Republicans. Even with the rumors of homosexuality in the background, had you asked me which Congressman was sending explicit emails to a 16 year old boy, Foley would have been very far down on my list based on his record.

Posted by: Von Bek at September 29, 2006 at 5:43 pm

Foley’s sexual orientation has been an “open secret” in Washington for years. He doesn’t talk about it, but he doesn’t lie about it either.
But sexually engaging a minor crosses the line. There are those out there who will argue that a 16-year-old should really be fair game, but those arguments don’t apply here. Elected officials are held to a higher standard.

Posted by: Jeff Harrell at September 29, 2006 at 8:14 pm

Ok. Am I the only one not seeing this? There are rumors about Mark Foley, and we condemn him despite his 12 years of service and being loved by his community? However, Tom Delay has a similar situation and we call him innocent from the beginning. Can we stick to one standard? What are we? Democrats? Innocent until proven guilty, people. I say this as a Foley constituent.

Posted by: AMERPUN at September 30, 2006 at 12:50 am

Ameripun, I’m guessing we’re past the rumor phase and heading into the plea bargain phase.
And yes: loved by the community. Too much love with too many underage members of the community. I’ll give you that much.
Let’s hear it for those Republican family values!!!!!!

Posted by: Michael at September 30, 2006 at 10:51 am

The managers who oversee the congressional pages have been warning them for years to watch out for Foley. Seems like a pretty slippery slope to me.

Posted by: david Wickert at September 30, 2006 at 12:03 pm

Why did the GOP not do something about this sooner?

Posted by: bryan at September 30, 2006 at 3:35 pm

The attraction was unwelcome and seems to have involved an abuse of power. So in this case, yes it was wrong. But not because of the age difference.
For information on relationships between post-pubescent people with a significant age difference give this a look:

Posted by: J.Kende at September 30, 2006 at 7:04 pm

Come on people, this guy was begging to be caught. Who in their right mind sends porno IMs and odd-sounding emails to a kid, and thinks it will all stay on the DL?

Posted by: Jeff Lemmon at September 30, 2006 at 8:42 pm

Michael, if Foley is pro-choice then he’s not a family-values Republican.
Bryan, it was up to Republican voters in Foley’s district to do something about this — to run somone against him and defeat Foley in a primary. But I’m guessing that the general public didn’t know that this was going on, nor did his colleagues in the House. Had they known, there is precedent for a censure.
Republican voters tend to walk away from politicians caught in sex scandals, while Democratic voters seem to rally around sexually tarnished pols. For example: In 1983, Gerry Studds (D-MA) and Dan Crane (R-IL) were censured by the House for having sex with underage pages (male in Studds’ case, female in Crane’s case). Crane apologized, but his constituents voted him out of office. Studds refused to apologize and was re-elected seven more times.
I can’t think of a single example of a Republican official who was caught in a sex scandal and yet remained in office.

Posted by: Michael Bates at September 30, 2006 at 11:54 pm

Dayum Michael, I was frothing to bring up Studds and you beat me to it :-(
Studds is a hypocrite too – he brings his pages on his boat and claims he’s against offshore drilling!

Posted by: Radical Redneck at October 1, 2006 at 2:23 pm

I heard somebody working for his campaign in Florida say “We knew, but he was winning for us!” That’s short-sighted and just plain wrong IMO. Isn’t it? Somebody should’ve ‘dropped the dime’ on him. Fuck it, I’d rather lose than let a pederast have free reign. I cannot respect someone who would have it the other way round. This is not a party matter, as others have pointed out, and there is definitely a line over which politicians should not cross. Affairs? I’m not so bothered (however, if they lie to their spouses, they’ll lie to me, I feel, so preferably not), but abusive relationships? Certainly not.

Posted by: bryan at October 1, 2006 at 5:09 pm
Post a comment