Sneer on Mr. Bricker. Sneer on.

[Scylla]

Concerning Mr. Foley. Yes, it is quite distasteful, quite unfortunate, and quite innapropriate.

A barely closeted gay Republican was quite friendly to some pages. Was he more innapropriately friendly to these pages than we would expect Senator Kennedy to be to an attractive 16 year old girl? Did he break a law? Did he engage in sex or corrupt a minor while they were under age.

I have not heard that allegation made. Considering carefully what we do know, Mr. Foley had contact with a former page by IM and email while that person was underrage and it was enough to make the interest was enough to make the parents uncomfortable. A stern talking to occured and Mr. Foley was told to desist. The content of these emails while the boy was underrage is unknown, at least to me. It’s possible someone will correct me and show innapropriate conduct towards a minor, and if so, I would welcome the correction.

After the boy was 18 Foley engaged in cybersex with him. I do not find it unexpected that an older gay man might be attracted to younger gay men and look forward to the day they turn 18 in much the way so many of us looked forward to Britney Spears turning 18.

Distasteful? Yes. Innapropriate for a man in his position? Yes. Illegal? Hardly.
Mr. Foley is gone, denounced and condemned now by both Democrats and Republicans for his actions. Crass partisanship and cries of hypocrisy are heaped upon those who might defend him or suggest his actions are anything worthy of less than the full measure of opprobrium, scorn and contempt.

Quite an October surprise, and nothing to be done for it. Nothing to be said.

Or is there?

Let us turn gently to two highly disparate sources. First, of course, I give you the lovely and talented… or venomous and hate spewing (you clicks your mouse and chooseth your adjectives yourself) Ann Coulter who today has written a rather interesting column.

Does anyone remember Gerry Studds?

In 1983, Democratic congressman Gerry Studds was found to have sexually propositioned House pages and actually buggered a 17-year-old male page whom he took on a trip to Portugal. The 46-year-old Studds indignantly attacked those who criticized him for what he called a “mutually voluntary, private relationship between adults.”

When the House censured Studds for his sex romp with a male page, Studds — not one to be shy about presenting his backside to a large group of men — defiantly turned his back on the House during the vote. He ran for re-election and was happily returned to office five more times by liberal Democratic voters in his Martha’s Vineyard district…

Washington Post columnist Colman McCarthy referred to Studds’ affair with a teenage page as “a brief consenting homosexual relationship” and denounced Studds’ detractors for engaging in a “witch-hunt” against gays: “New England witch trials belong to the past, or so it is thought. This summer on Cape Cod, the reputation of Rep. Gerry Studds was burned at the stake by a large number of his constituents determined to torch the congressman for his private life.”

Meanwhile, Foley is hiding in a hole someplace.

No one demanded to know why the Democratic speaker of the House, Thomas “Tip” O’Neill, took one full decade to figure out that Studds was propositioning male pages.

But now, the same Democrats who are incensed that Bush’s National Security Agency was listening in on al-Qaida phone calls are incensed that Republicans were not reading a gay congressman’s instant messages.

Remember the cries of indignation, and rage and the accusations of witch hunting and gay-hating.

Where is the defense of Foley from the ever gay friendly Democratic coalition.

If Gerry Studds can get reelected with Democratic support after sodomizing 17 year old boys why would they seek to crucify Mr. Foley for email and IM with an 18 year old?

Can you say “double standard?” Can you say “Hypocrisy?”

So sneer on, Mr. Bricker. Sneer on.

I shall give you some more to sneer about.

Consider the timing of this issue, this October surprise. It is not the first time the Democratic party has played fast and loose with the issue of gay people to win an election.

Do you remember the most recent Presidential election when Mr. Kerry and Edwards went to great pains to remind everyone that Mr. Cheney had a gay daughter? Of course, this was all phrased in the most complimentary of terms, but the clear implication was that they wanted the social conservative base to know that Cheney was harboring a dyke in the hopes they might not turn out to support him or make him look weak on family values.

No consideration for the young lady, her dignity, or her privacy. The most personal aspects of her life joyfully made public to serve a political end.
Is this not worthy of a sneer?

But you protest. It was nothing of the kind, Edwards’ and Kerrys’ remarks. They were sincerely complimentary of Mr. Cheney as a fellow crusader for gay rights.
Hmmmm.
I did promise two disparate viewpoints, did I not? Let us click now on the other end of the spectrum politically and view what this bold crusader for justice, or lying antichrist (you clicks your mouse and chooseth your adjective,) David Corn has to say.

Scroll down to October 4, “THE LIST.”

“THE LIST” is a list of top Republican Congressional Aides who are gay.

What purpose would such a list serve and who would compile it? Mr. Corn has decided not to post the names on THE LIST, but he does say this:

I don’t fancy outing people–though I have not objected when others have outed gay Republicans, who, after all, work for a party that tries to limit the rights of gays and lesbians and that welcomes the support of those who demonize same-sexers

Apparently, it is ok to out people if they disagree with you politically. Apparently it is ok to have such a list, so that you can keep it handy for when you can use it.

Disgusting.

Personally, I suspect that many people on THE LISt are not exactly super-closeted (else they would not be on the list, would they?) That they are gay is hardly an issue, or a topic of interest to those Republicans that employ them. What is of interest is their ability to their jobs well. Doing so would be why the have the jobs they have. Their sexual orientation is irrelevant and should not come into play. It is their choice, their freedom. This list supposedly contains some high-powered name.)

The List–which includes nine chiefs of staffs, two press secretaries, and two directors of communications–is that (if it’s acucurate) it shows that some of the religious right’s favorite representatives and senators have gay staffers helping them advance their political careers and agendas.

Why would Mr. Corn have a problem with this? Why would he have a copy of this list? Why would this list be circulating among Democrats?

The Republicans apparently don’t care. Why do you?

I support gay rights. It is my shame that the party of my choice has social conservatives among its core constituency who’s agenda is clearly anti-gay. It is why I renounced my Republicanism severeal years ago. I cannot abide it.

I would like to say that I find the Democrats’ attitudes equally distasteful. That’s not true. It’s a different animal, and I find it difficult to compare apples and oranges.

But, for a party that lays such claim to being for equality and civil rights to use people and this issue this way, to demonstrate such callous hypocrisy, such two-facedness and to be openly and cynically manipulative concerning people’s personal choices brings quite the sneer of disgust to my lips.

I look down upon the Republican majority for their ignorant, outdated and prejudical attitudes towards gays and I am ashamed.

Perhaps though in some circumstances I can waive my hand and become an apologist and say that they know not what they do for they are misguided and stupid yes, but not insincere in their beleifs, and perhaps I can point to the gay staffers with a small measure of pride and say that their skill at their vocation does not allow their orientation to disqualify them from service, that there is at least that.

We cannot really claim that Democrats know not what they do, can we?

They claim to know better on this issue. They claim the high ground. They can’t claim that they don’t know better.

Lest I leave without Godwinizing, remember that the Nazis made “lists” too.
So sneer on.
Sneer and weep and vote for the scumbag of your choice, be he vile hypocritical opportunistic two-faced Democrat or slimy bigoted greedy self-serving Republican.

You casts your vote and you chooseth your adjective.

-Adieu

But we can’t really say that the Democrats

[Bosda_Di_Chi_of_Tricor]

I don’t care if the page was male or female–a teenager cannot make a valid consent, especially involving advances from a powerful politician.

[Oakminster]

Foley crucified himself by his own actions. The scandal here is that it appears the GoP leadership knew about his problems and covered it up for political expediency.

[elucidator]

@Scylla

…But we can’t really say that the Democrats

Conversely, we can’t really say that the Republicans

[Scylla]

@Oakminster

The scandal here is that it appears the GoP leadership knew about his problems and covered it up for political expediency.

Yes. That is in fact the scandal presented to us for consumption in our regularly scheduled October surprise, and it is assumed we are too stupid to remember Mr. Studds or the ritualistic offering up of gay sacrificial lambs upon the alter of Democratic electability and the keeping of lists of such lambs.

“Bahh-bahh” liberal sheep, and pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

[John_Mace]

@Oakminster

Foley crucified himself by his own actions. The scandal here is that it appears the GoP leadership knew about his problems and covered it up for political expediency.

Exactly. Foley is gone, and there is a criminal investigation underway by the FBI. What we’re reading about in the papers now is about the GOP leadership and if they were negligent. The House ethics panel is looking into it and promises a resolution in weeks (not months). I doubt we’ll see a final ruling before the election, but the main thrust of this isn’t about Foley anymore.

[Scylla]

@elucidator

Conversely, we can’t really say that the Republicans

My kingdom for an edit function.

[GIGObuster]

Remember the cries of indignation, and rage and the accusations of witch hunting and gay-hating.

Where is the defense of Foley from the ever gay friendly Democratic coalition.

If Gerry Studds can get reelected with Democratic support after sodomizing 17 year old boys why would they seek to crucify Mr. Foley for email and IM with an 18 year old?

Can you say “double standard?” Can you say “Hypocrisy?”

So sneer on, Mr. Bricker. Sneer on.

I shall give you some more to sneer about.

OOOOOh boy! That sounded like Lord Haw Haw’s drunken last speech!

Foley was a predator or resorted to harassing many pages, Gerry Studds was not; even so, Gerry Studds was censored, together with a Republican rep that was involved with a female page.

As for who is doing the crucifixion now, it is really stupid to blame the democrats, AFAIK Foley’s resignation happened because the Republicans pressured him to quit.

The scandal now deals with the cover up, like in Nixon’s time, it is not the burglary but the cover up that sank Nixon.

[Bricker]

@Scylla

I have not heard that allegation made. Considering carefully what we do know, Mr. Foley had contact with a former page by IM and email while that person was underrage and it was enough to make the interest was enough to make the parents uncomfortable. A stern talking to occured and Mr. Foley was told to desist. The content of these emails while the boy was underrage is unknown, at least to me. It’s possible someone will correct me and show innapropriate conduct towards a minor, and if so, I would welcome the correction.

After the boy was 18 Foley engaged in cybersex with him. I do not find it unexpected that an older gay man might be attracted to younger gay men and look forward to the day they turn 18 in much the way so many of us looked forward to Britney Spears turning 18.

Distasteful? Yes. Innapropriate for a man in his position? Yes. Illegal? Hardly.

I think you misapprehend the force and direction of my ire, Scylla.

I said in the GD thread at first that it wasn’t clear to me that anything illegal had transpired. After the IM chats came to light, I opined that those were likely illegal, assuming of course that we were still discussing someone under 18. Those disclaimers were clearly made in the context of the GD thread. If, as you suggest, the target of those graphic IMs was in fact over 18, then we’re back to non-criminal behavior. Regardless, it’s appropriate for him to resign, since using teen pages – and arguably GROOMING teen pages – for flirtation purposes and more explicit conduct after they turn 18 is simply wrong.

Now, the Pit thread.

That thread is not targetted at Mr. Foley. Instead, I inveigh against the various pundits, GOP leaders, and fellow travelers that sought to distract the attention from Foley’s actions by various means, including accusing Dems of manipulating the timing, the kid of setting Foley up, and the fact that there was a Dem Congressman who actually had sex with a 17-year-old male page.

All of those things are worthy of discussion. But NONE are worthy of supplanting the main issue: “our guy” (as it were) screwed up. If we are who we say we are, we should not be doing anything to distract or minimize this. That failure of behavior was what brought me to the Pit.

If Gerry Studds can get reelected with Democratic support after sodomizing 17 year old boys why would they seek to crucify Mr. Foley for email and IM with an 18 year old?

Can you say “double standard?” Can you say “Hypocrisy?”

Valid points, no questin about it.

But here’s the thing. They are strictly secondary. Our reaction should not be, “Well, the Dems did (or did not) do such-and-such.” Our reaction should simply be: “This is wrong, and we put a stop to it.”

And if it should come to pass that Hastert, or one of his ilk, knew in advance and failed to act, he needs to go.

In short: your points are valid, but utterly irrelevant. Are we really saying we need to consider how the Democrats react before we can judge the rightness or wrongness of something? The Dems supported Studds; they criticize Foley. Big Fucking Irrelevant Deal. What are WE going to do about how WE handled it? (Hint: any answer that has the word “Democrats” in it isn’t the right one.)

[Orbifold]

Is there any actual evidence…any at all…that suggests that the Democratic Party has anything to do with the timing of this scandal, as Scylla so ham-handedly insinuates (he asked, wearily).

[Scylla]

@GIGObuster

Foley was a predator or resorted to harassing many pages,

Did he have sex with an underrage child? In what way is he a “predator.”

Gerry Studds was not;

Studds sodomized a 17 year old boy and got reelected. How is he not a “predator” when cybersex with an 18 year old (which seems like a lesser offense) is?

As for who is doing the crucifixion now, it is really stupid to blame the democrats, AFAIK Foley’s resignation happened because the Republicans pressured him to quit.

Granted. Granted. Should not the Democrats not be defending him as they did Studds? Should they not be even-handed and protect him, too? And who outed him? I hardly beleive in the coincidence of the timing. Do you?

The scandal now deals with the cover up, like in Nixon’s time, it is not the burglary but the cover up that sank Nixon.

What crime is being coverd up? I honestly don’t know?

[elucidator]

@Scylla

Yes. That is in fact the scandal presented to us for consumption in our regularly scheduled October surprise, and it is assumed we are too stupid to remember Mr. Studds…

Is he that porno movie guy who’s so hairy he looks like a carpet with legs?

…or the ritualistic offering up of gay sacrificial lambs upon the alter of Democratic electability and the keeping of lists of such lambs…

A fevered fantasy and an overstuffed metaphor. Has anyone seen these lists? If, as you say, these lists exist and the Dems are creeps for using those lists, ahhhh…where are they? If they haven’t done anything yet, what are you on about?

…“Bahh-bahh” liberal sheep, and pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

The curtain fell apart, being a tissue of lies. We now see the man behind the curtain, and it is the Wizard of Ooze.

[Brainiac4]

Scylla, you’re a talented writer. But when you venture into politics, you’re just another ass. **Bricker **had the class to be disgusted when the party of his choice acted reprehensibly. You, sadly, are not following in his footsteps.

The point isn’t that someone else may have done something similar. Of course it’s happened before, and will happen again. The point is that when it does, we all, as human beings, need to recognize that it’s bad behavior.

Take off the ideological blinders you accuse others of wearing. Please.

[Oakminster]

@Scylla

“Bahh-bahh” liberal sheep, and pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

Are you calling me a liberal sheep? Can I puh-lease get a Mod to sticky this thread? Just because I don’t get called liberal very often, and doubt it will happen around here again.

I’d suggest that a fair reading of my posts might place me slightly to the left of John Mace. Doubt that gets me into the liberal clubhouse…

[GIGObuster]

@John Mace

Exactly. Foley is gone, and there is a criminal investigation underway by the FBI. What we’re reading about in the papers now is about the GOP leadership and if they were negligent. The House ethics panel is looking into it and promises a resolution in weeks (not months). I doubt we’ll see a final ruling before the election, but the main thrust of this isn’t about Foley anymore.

**Scylla ** will have none of that, nooo sir! Don’t you see the huge hypocrisy of leaving Foley behind, sad and alone, when a democrat got away with it?

A subject for the smoke screen of the day, but similar to what John Mace said, it is the cover up or the incompetency showed by the republican leadership the issue now.

[Orbifold]

@Scylla

Granted. Granted. Should not the Democrats not be defending him as they did Studds?

“Defending”? Studds was censured by a vote of 420-3 and was stripped of his committee chairmanships by the Democratic leadership. But don’t let pesky facts get in the way of your spittle-flecked ire.

[Knorf]

@GIGObuster

As for who is doing the crucifixion now, it is really stupid to blame the democrats, AFAIK Foley’s resignation happened because the Republicans pressured him to quit.

As far as I can tell, it is actually Republicans who have expressed the greatest outrage over Foley’s actions; Hastert’s cover-up, and Hastert’s lying about his cover-up, have taken more umbrage from Democrats, but Republicans aren’t happy about that, either.

I agree that it doesn’t appear clear that he did anything clearly illegal, depending on where you draw the line of sexual harassment. It is worth mentioning that one of the pages involved was apparently 15 at the time of the incident.

I’ve seen Democrats defend what is worth defending: Foley is not a pedophile, for one, and the alleged actions do no make him one. Sexual harassment of underlings is the real problem, and that is indefensible. I’ll leave it to lawyers to discover whether it is also criminal in the alleged cases.

However, Ann Coulter and Scylla by extension are full of shit in saying that this scandal was orchestrated by Democrats. Hardly: plenty of Republicans, even a plurality (Hastert excepted) seem inclined to overreact to this as well.

But the bottom line, Scylla, is that it is idiotic to bring up a 20-year old case involving a totally different cast of characters. Parroting Coulter’s words leaves one looking like nothing more than a simple dumbass. You’re better than that, or so I used to think.

[Orbifold]

@Orbifold

…and was stripped of his committee chairmanships…

Quick correction: chairmanship, singular.

[Miller]

@Scylla

A barely closeted gay Republican was quite friendly to some pages. Was he more innapropriately friendly to these pages than we would expect Senator Kennedy to be to an attractive 16 year old girl? Did he break a law? Did he engage in sex or corrupt a minor while they were under age.

Propositioning a minor is indeed against the law, even if you don’t get to fuck the kid.

Let us turn gently to two highly disparate sources. First, of course, I give you the lovely and talented… or venomous and hate spewing (you clicks your mouse and chooseth your adjectives yourself) Ann Coulter who today has written a rather interesting column.

Does anyone remember Gerry Studds?

Considering that I was eight at the time, no. Does that make me one of Coulter’s “same democrats” who are now calling for Foley’s head? Got anything that’s less than two decades old to tu quoque with? 'Cause that shit’s pretty weak.

Where is the defense of Foley from the ever gay friendly Democratic coalition.

Foley being gay is immaterial. What’s being objected to is the fact that he was going after fifteen year olds. Surely you can understand the difference?

If Gerry Studds can get reelected with Democratic support after sodomizing 17 year old boys why would they seek to crucify Mr. Foley for email and IM with an 18 year old?

I don’t know. Why don’t you find a specific democrat who defended Studds twenty-three years ago, who is now attacking Mark Foley, and ask him?

Consider the timing of this issue, this October surprise. It is not the first time the Democratic party has played fast and loose with the issue of gay people to win an election.

What does the Democratic party have to do with this? The story was leaked by a Republican. There’s no evidence that any Democrat knew about this before it broke last week. If this is an “October Surprise,” it’s one the Republicans sprang on themselves.

Do you remember the most recent Presidential election when Mr. Kerry and Edwards went to great pains to remind everyone that Mr. Cheney had a gay daughter? Of course, this was all phrased in the most complimentary of terms, but the clear implication was that they wanted the social conservative base to know that Cheney was harboring a dyke in the hopes they might not turn out to support him or make him look weak on family values.

Who was active and highly visible in working for her father’s campaign. She decided of her own free will to enter the political ring, which made her fair game. Personally, I think it’s highly relevant that a candidate for the “family values” party was willing to sell out his own daughter’s rights to score a few congressional seats, but maybe you don’t see the irony there.

I did promise two disparate viewpoints, did I not? Let us click now on the other end of the spectrum politically and view what this bold crusader for justice, or lying antichrist (you clicks your mouse and chooseth your adjective,) David Corn has to say.

David who? I’ve never heard of this guy. Who is he, and why should I care what he says?

Apparently, it is ok to out people if they disagree with you politically.

Well, that’s a whole seperate issue. I think it’s okay to out closeted politicians who have aggressively attacked other gays for political expedience. I don’t see that as anything other than simple self defence.

Apparently it is ok to have such a list, so that you can keep it handy for when you can use it.

Disgusting.

I suppose so. Who compiled the list, and who released it to the public? What does David Corn have to do with the list, other than the fact that he mentioned it’s been published on a different blog?

I support gay rights. It is my shame that the party of my choice has social conservatives among its core constituency who’s agenda is clearly anti-gay. It is why I renounced my Republicanism severeal years ago. I cannot abide it.

Good for you. Seriously, that’s very admirable.

It’s also pretty much irrelevant. No one is attacking Mark Foley for being gay. (At least, no one on the left is…) They’re attacking him for hitting on teenagers working in his office.

But, for a party that lays such claim to being for equality and civil rights to use people and this issue this way, to demonstrate such callous hypocrisy, such two-facedness and to be openly and cynically manipulative concerning people’s personal choices brings quite the sneer of disgust to my lips.

How have the Democrats used anyone in this scandal?

Perhaps though in some circumstances I can waive my hand and become an apologist and say that they know not what they do for they are misguided and stupid yes, but not insincere in their beleifs, and perhaps I can point to the gay staffers with a small measure of pride and say that their skill at their vocation does not allow their orientation to disqualify them from service, that there is at least that.

Personally, I think it’s an example of the towering hypocrisy of the right in this country. Such displays of “tolerance” are directly at odds with the anti-gay rhetoric they spew with dismaying regularity, and merely serves to underline the fact that they are not “misguided and stupid,” but callously pandering to the prejudices of the electorate to secure votes, without any regard to how it affects the lives of gays and lesbians in society.

Lest I leave without Godwinizing, remember that the Nazis made “lists” too.

I’d have gone with the Nixon comparison, myself. Much more apt.

I will agree with you on this much, though. The Democrats are not the “gay friendly” party. They are simply less violently prejudiced that the Republicans.

[The_Golden_Ass]

@Orbifold

Is there any actual evidence…any at all…that suggests that the Democratic Party has anything to do with the timing of this scandal, as Scylla so ham-handedly insinuates (he asked, wearily).

No there’s not

Scylla, where do you get that the victim of Foley’s harrassment (if not molestation) was 18? Fox news? The Page Was sixteen years old

We don’t know if he had sex with a minor…yet. But he hasn’t denied a single allegation that’s been flung his way, and given the fact that his press conference set up mitigating factors, I wouldn’t be surprised if it came to light very soon that he did.

Scylla, you have two children. Can you honestly say that if you learned your sixteen year old daughter was being harassed by a 52 year old boss, sent sexually explicit emails by this person, and even had cybersex with her boss during office hours (and yeah, I think a vote on the house floor counts as “office hours”) that you wouldn’t think there’s a problem? You wouldn’t be the least bit upset that a person in power took advantage of his position to seduce and harrass your daughter? Judging from your posts here, you apparently think that’s acceptable behaivor.

It’s not. Even if Foley didn’t behave criminally, morally and ethically he’s scum, and the people who supported him, the people who knew this information and kept it secret, the people who encouraged him to run for re-election (even though they knew), are scum as well. In the IMs, he encouraged 16 year old boys to meet with him, to come to his house to drink, and in at least one case, had cybersex. If you think that’s acceptable from anybody, then quite frankly, you’re a piece of shit. If you think it’s acceptable for a man of huge power to target a subordinate for easy access, then you’re a disgusting piece of shit. And if you think it’s acceptable for a man with enourmous power to target minors for sexual gratification, then you’e a revolting, sorry excuse for a human being, and lower than a piece of shit.