Today on Blogcritics
Home » Gay Republicans Need to Grow a Pair

Gay Republicans Need to Grow a Pair

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

In the midst of an emerging scandal, Congressman Mark Foley (R-FL) abruptly resigned from the House of Representatives on Friday. News leaked out this week that Foley had been sending suggestive emails and engaging in sexual online chat sessions with underage congressional pages. The story was made public by one of the former pages on an anti-Republican headhunter website CREW. It was then picked up and investigated by ABC News.

The story actually goes back almost a year, when the GOP leadership became aware that Foley had sent some pages inappropriate emails and took steps to limit his contact with pages. It's also likely that GOP leaders had been aware of Foley's sexual orientation for much longer. The pages involved were all male and, while they were under the age of majority (pages are normally high-school juniors and seniors), they were and are above the age of consent in DC. Transcripts of Foley's online chats with the former page who made the original complaint pretty clearly show that the sexual discussion was mutual and consensual. An ethics investigation has been initiated, but at this time there has been no suggestion that Foley's offenses went beyond inappropriate emails and sexual online chat. It's particularly ironic that Foley was chairman of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children.

Like most gay Republicans, Foley kept his sexual orientation firmly under wraps. He flirted with honesty, but never committed. He attended the Log Cabin Republican convention, but at the same time commented that it's "revolting and unforgivable" for people to speculate he might be gay. Of course, it also would have been correct. Party insiders were almost certainly aware he was gay, but to all appearances he was a good Catholic and a champion of family values. He even voted for the Defense of Marriage Act. His exposure and resignation are reminiscent of the sudden outing and resignation of New Jersey governor Jim McGreevey in 2004. As with McGreevey, Foley's offenses went beyond just being in the closet to include potential ethics violations and perhaps minor criminal activity.

It's easy to say Foley is a liar and a creep and we're better off with him out of Congress, but that misses the big picture. Foley is just the tip of the iceberg. By all accounts, the GOP is loaded with closeted homosexuals, an invaluable 'gay mafia,' which has made great contributions to the success the party has enjoyed in recent years. The problem is that being in the closet makes you vulnerable, and forces you underground into an environment where repression makes excess attractive and exposure can turn pecadillos into a career-ending scandal. Unable to seek normal, public social outlets for their sexuality, these repressed individuals look for satisfaction in the office or with those they can control and manipulate. The fact they are living secret lives makes them more likely to express their homosexuality in the most immoral and exploitative ways.

This kind of scandal is not unique to the Republican Party. 20 years ago, Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) got caught with his gigolo boyfriend running a male prostitution ring out of his apartment. Frank toughed it out, got a censure, and won reelection by a large margin. He's served 10 more terms in Congress since then and is widely regarded as one of the smarter and more influential figures on the Hill.

Barney Frank has balls. Apparently Mark Foley and a lot of other gay Republicans are endowed like Ken dolls. One of the things which gave Frank an edge was his willingness to be honest and be open about his mistakes and his sexuality. For most gay Republicans with political ambitions, that's not a realistic possibility. The infiltration of the party by powerful religiously-motivated groups has made it inadvisable for gay Republicans to be open about their sexuality and thereby protect themselves from scandalmongers and partisan witchhunts.

Maybe the Foley case is a sign that it's time for this attitude to change. A party facing constant, vicious, and unprincipled partisan assault can afford openly gay members far more than it can afford to lose seats in Congress because of scandal. What Foley did might earn him a censure, but if he handled it with the honesty of Barney Frank — whose offenses were as bad or worse — he could easily have survived and remained in office.

Foley's weakness was manifested not only in his bad behavior and poor judgment, but also in his unwillingness to admit and accept his sexuality and deal with it publicly and honestly. Remaining closeted made him vulnerable, but at least once he was outed, he could have been a man — a proud gay man — and had the balls to stand fast and not choose the coward's way out to the detriment of his party. It might have been a rough ride, but he owed that much to the voters, his party, and the rest of his gay brethren.

Other gay Republicans should take what happened to Foley as a sign and publicly admit their sexuality before unscrupulous elements on the left or homophobes in the religious right decide to target them for destruction. After November 7th, there will be some breathing space before the presidential campaign really gets rolling. What better time for gay Republicans in elected or appointive office to come out and deal with this issue openly, honestly, and in the safety provided by doing it as a group? It would protect their careers, improve their lives, and benefit the party enormously.

Powered by

About Dave Nalle

Dave Nalle is Executive Director of the Texas Liberty Foundation, Chairman of the Center for Foreign and Defense Policy, South Central Regional Director for the Republican Liberty Caucus and an advisory board member at the Coalition to Reduce Spending. He was Texas State Director for the Gary Johnson Presidential campaign, an adviser to the Ted Cruz senatorial campaign, Communications Director for the Travis County Republican Party and National Chairman of the Republican Liberty Caucus. He has also consulted on many political campaigns, specializing in messaging. Before focusing on political activism, he owned or was a partner in several businesses in the publishing industry and taught college-level history for 20 years.
  • http://jcb.pentex-net.com John Bambenek

    Perhaps, if people want gay and proud spokesmen in the Republican Party, the might not want on who chases young boys. Or do we want the NAMBLA stereotype enforced in the minds of society?

    Just a thought…

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org/wp/ Margaret Romao Toigo

    Wow, I agree with Mr. Bambenek.

    Had the object of Rep. Foley’s “affection” been over the age of 18, he may have been able to come out of the closet to stand as a proud, gay Republican, but the vast majority of Americans think that all pedophiles are scum, regardless of their orientations.

    Rep. Foley would have been just as gone — maybe even a little more so — if the page in question was a 16 year-old girl.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Except that the interchange was consensual, took place after the page was no longer working there, and did not involve anything but discussion – so where is the crime? But wait, there’s more. The legal age of consent in DC is 16. So even if he were having orgies with pages it would still be legal.

    There’s no crime here. Even if he had actually done anything he wouldn’t legally be a pedophile. End of story.

    Dave

  • Craig

    For how long has Jim Kolbe (R-AZ) been openly gay? Since about 1996, I think. Is it true that David Dreier (R-CA) is gay? What was the name of the gay Republican congressman from the Midwest back in the early 90s?

    The point is, gay Republicans don’t have a big problem getting elected (or, at least, re-elected). To the extent that they do, it is a district-by-district issue, not a nationwide one. Yes, some districts are filled with the types of social conservatives who won’t vote for a gay man. In other districts it doesn’t matter.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Kolbe and Dreier were both at the Log Cabin Republican convention which Foley spoke at, along with a number of others – some of whom I know are not gay, but sympathetic.

    I doubt that he would have had much trouble getting elected in Florida. The old folks there may be fiscally conservative but a lot of them come from the northeast originally and are more socially open-minded.

    Dave

  • RogerMDillon

    While you might feel that Repub gays should come out of the closet, the leadership obviously doesn’t agree with you, which either reflects their own views or that of their base.

    “if he handled it with the honesty of Barney Frank – whose offenses were as bad or worse – he could easily have survived and remained in office.”

    What is this opinion based on? Is there some poll of likely voters that showed the majority would overlook Foley’s indiscretion and potential pedophilia? He’s lucky he didn’t end up on Dateline. The complete story never breaks immediately. Foley knew what he wrote and what he did, and along with party officials knew he could no longer win.

    I’m not sure how you compare male prostitution between consenting adults to an adult pursuing a minor. Also, the article you cite says Frank’s boyfriend ran the ring. It makes no mention that he was directly involved, although he certainly abused his powers.

    “Remaining closeted made [Foley] vulnerable,”

    Not in this insatnce. Pursuing a minor did. If Foley had been a straight male pursuing an underage girl, he would have received the same treatment.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    While you might feel that Repub gays should come out of the closet, the leadership obviously doesn’t agree with you, which either reflects their own views or that of their base.

    A good portion of the leadership IS gay from what I can tell. As for their base, if the base is leading the party off track maybe they need a different base. And the truth is that there is no one base in the GOP, just a whole bunch of different interest gorups.

    if he handled it with the honesty of Barney Frank – whose offenses were as bad or worse – he could easily have survived and remained in office.”

    What is this opinion based on? Is there some poll of likely voters that showed the majority would overlook Foley’s indiscretion and potential pedophilia? He’s lucky he didn’t end up on Dateline. The complete story never breaks immediately. Foley knew what he wrote and what he did, and along with party officials knew he could no longer win.

    You think he had less chance of winning than some guy they throw on the ticket with one month to go? Doesn’t seem realistic.

    I’m not sure how you compare male prostitution between consenting adults to an adult pursuing a minor. Also, the article you cite says Frank’s boyfriend ran the ring. It makes no mention that he was directly involved, although he certainly abused his powers.

    There’s a lot of stuff about the Frank case which didn’t get full exposure precisely because he came out and dealt with it.

    Dave

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org/wp/ Margaret Romao Toigo

    The fact that there was no actual crime is irrelevant to the politics of such a scandal.

    Perception being reality, even if Rep. Foley is never indicted for it in a court of law, he’s already been convicted of pedophilia in the court of public opinion, thereby negating the far lesser “offense” of being homosexual.

    I do understand and agree with your most astute points about why gay Republicans’ should work on growing some guts, especially because, “being in the closet makes you vulnerable, and forces you underground into an environment where repression makes excess attractive and exposure can turn pecadillos into a career-ending scandal.”

    The unique angle you took simply doesn’t apply to this particular situation. But that assertion could change, depending upon what’s still clinging to the sides after the spin cycle slows.

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet In Columbus

    VERY good reporting Dave. I just saw a report on CNN where the republican house leadership has known about these e-mails for over a year now and covered them up to avoid a scandal.

    I’ve always admired Barney Frank. By coming out as he did, he serves his constituents well by not worrying about scandal, and as a result his constituents keep repeatedly reelecting him.

    I commend you for your fair reporting of this subject.

    I couldn’t have done it better myself

    In fact, after reading this I’ve just deleted the article I was writing on it.

    kudos my friend…

    …but of course that’s only my opinion!

    Jet

  • http://jcb.pentex-net.com John Bambenek

    Whether what Foley did was illegal or not isn’t the problem. Maybe the age of consent is 16, but the idea that some 50 year old guys are talking about beating off 16 years olds is “normal”… well, I’m not sure what to say to that.

    And it’s rather irrelevant. We want our politicians to be held to a higher standard than committing no crimes. McGreevy got shitcanned because he landed his gay lover a job as heading the NJ Dept. of Homeland Security, despite no qualifications. In a very odd picture, after his resignation and coming out he leaves the governor’s mansion all smiles, HOLDING HIS WIFE’S HAND. Something is wrong with people who engage in that kind of image-making.

    And your damn right the leadership covered it up, for similar reasons as Dave mentioned as to why he should stand up and be proud instead. He did nothing wrong, the Republicans told him to knock it off because it was bad PR, and the Democrats would run on the “Culture of Pedophilia”. All accounts indicate that this was “handled” by the leadership when it broke a year ago (about when these messages were sent).

    Lastly, I simply do not subscribe to the idea that being closeted or “repressed” leads to pedophilia, gay or otherwise. Those attractions would be there regardless because those individuals are psychologically malformed.

  • http://counter-point.blogspot.com Scott

    “I doubt that he would have had much trouble getting elected in Florida. The old folks there may be fiscally conservative but a lot of them come from the northeast originally and are more socially open-minded”

    That’s probably why Charlie Crist will win governor, as rumors abound that he’s gay as well.

  • MCH

    “Except that the interchange was consensual, took place after the page was no longer working there, and did not involve anything but discussion – so where is the crime?”
    – Dave Nalle

    Wow, that about tops any criticism I could have of Dave Nalle. Fucking unbelievable.

  • http://www.futonreport.net/ Matthew T. Sussman

    He’ll have plenty of time talking to little boys when you’re living in a VAN DOWN BY THE RIVER!

  • Clavos

    Dave,

    My local FOX (Network, not News) outlet just alleged that the kid’s parents were advised of the situation a year ago, when the Republican leadership found out, and that they (the parents) asked that the matter be dropped.

    In your research for the article, did you come across any information to that effect?

  • Clavos

    That’s probably why Charlie Crist will win governor, as rumors abound that he’s gay as well.

    Plus, he’s by far the better candidate, though he’s no Jeb, unfortunately.

  • Peter J

    I don’t believe the fact that Congressman Foley’s sexual orientation should even be a factor here, nor should anyone elses.

    Any persons sexual orientation or behavior (unless, of course a law is broken) should not be a factor under any circumstances, even if that person is engaging in sexual communication or acts while holding a political position.

    What if a person in office were to be found to have engaged in a heterosexual act with a consenting adult under otherwise the same circumstances? Should that person be castigated and harrassed to the point of distraction?
    No, obviously not. That would be unjustly delving into that persons personal and private life.

    I sure hope we never see such a pathetic act of political rape in our great country.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    My local FOX (Network, not News) outlet just alleged that the kid’s parents were advised of the situation a year ago, when the Republican leadership found out, and that they (the parents) asked that the matter be dropped.

    In your research for the article, did you come across any information to that effect?

    I hadn’t heard that Clavos, but I actually wrote the article yesterday afternoon and the sotry literally broke in the MSM yesterday morning, so it clearly wasn’t fully exposed yet when I read up on the facts.

    One thing I tried to address in the article, but really didn’t manage to get into fully is the fact that to a large extent it is the effort to keep gay legislators in the closet which creates problems like this. They can’t go out to gay bars for fear of being identified and they can’t have an openly gay domestic situation, so they look for whatever outlet they can find – which is likely to be at work. If they weren’t in the closet the whole problem would be much less severe.

    Dave

  • http://www.futonreport.net/ Matthew T. Sussman

    “What if a person in office were to be found to have engaged in a heterosexual act with a consenting adult under otherwise the same circumstances?”

    So if I’m in Washington DC and I fuck my 16-year-old female assistant, everything’s cool, right?

    …Oh, it is?

    (Note to self: Request transfer to the east coast.)

  • Clavos

    No question about it.

    A gay who is in the closet and presenting a straight face to the world, whatever his occupation, is vulnerable to blackmail, and all manner of unpleasant things.

    I imagine that, with the religious right having the attitudes they do towrds homosexuality, it’s particularly difficult for Republican politicians to come out–more so than for Democrats, I would think.

  • Clavos

    BTW, Dave, I watched the three network stations’ news programs tonight also. None of them mentioned the parents–I think the FOX station may have had that part of the story wrong.

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ Elliott

    If you think a closeted gay Republican man in a conservative congressional district in the Red state of Florida could be re-elected in the wake of highly-publicized perverted online exchanges with a teenage boy (who himself called the exchanges “creepy”), while chairing the “House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children,” you are outta yer fucking mind…

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    RJ, while I admit the Foley probably wouldn’t win – though there’s no guaging the stupidity of Florida voters – you’re missing the larger point that if he’d been upfront about his sexuality from the start this problem likely could have been avoided alltogether.

    Dave

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ Elliott

    For the record, Foley doesn’t appear to be a “pedophile.” It looks like he is a “hebephile” instead…and yes, this is an important distinction to make…

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    He wants to have sex with the kitchen help?

    Dave

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ Elliott

    “What if a person in office were to be found to have engaged in a heterosexual act with a consenting adult under otherwise the same circumstances?”

    So if I’m in Washington DC and I fuck my 16-year-old female assistant, everything’s cool, right?

    …Oh, it is?

    (Note to self: Request transfer to the east coast.)

    LOL!

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ Elliott

    Hebephile = One who is sexually attracted to teens 13-17.

    Pedophile = One who is sexually attracted to children 1-12.

    Roughly…

  • http://www.futonreport.net/ Matthew T. Sussman

    Never use the word “roughly” when referring to sexual attractiveness.

  • Baronius

    Who infiltrated whose party??

    Christian conservative Republicans are loud and proud. It was Newt’s agenda that took the House in 1994 and has held it since. The religious right has been manning the phone banks and making the $20 donations that enable Republicans to win elections.

    Whatever you may think of the Christian conservativees, they’re not infiltrators. It’s the homosexuals within the party who’ve been quiet about their identities. They snuck in quietly because they know their sexual preference would be a political detriment.

    If you really believed your claims, you’d be calling for them to come out before the election. Instead, you counsel them to keep lying to the voters until they get re-elected. That’s politically and morally sickening.

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet In Columbus

    Portions of the CNN report

    …The lawmaker who oversees the page program, Rep. John Shimkus, a Republican from Illinois, said that he learned about Foley’s e-mails in late 2005 and “took immediate action to investigate the matter.”

    He was notified by Rep. Rodney Alexander, a Republican from Louisiana, in whose office the page had worked. Alexander forwarded the e-mails to the clerk of the House…

    …An aide to Rep. Tom Reynolds, the New York congressman who heads the National Republican Campaign Committee, said he knew about the matter a year ago

    I wonder if they kept it a secret so they wouldn’t lose that seat in congress?

    Perhaps an investigation into the leaders in congress that knew about this and said nothing is in order?

    …but of course that’s only my opinion!

    Jet

  • Alec

    Dave – some of the inaccuracies in your post are odd, since you are usually more careful about these things. D.C. law does not specify an age of consent for consensual homosexual conduct, so you cannot just assume that age sixteen applies equally for straights and gays. Some of Foley’s conduct was consensual, but other pages complained, one of the page’s parents’ clearly complained, incoming pages were warned about him by their peers, and his behavior was against Congressional rules. His pattern of increasingly reckless behavior despite warnings from his superiors suggested that he was about to cross all kinds of ethical lines. I can’t find any news source that even suggests that Barney Frank was involved with his lover’s prostitution ring. There is also no money trail that connects him. I am not a fan of Frank, and while it is possible that Congress was reluctant to press to hard on this, the public record is the public record. Given Internet sources like “the Smoking Gun,” etc., anyone who claims that there is more to the Frank case than was released to the public is duty-bound to either put up or shut up.

    In or out of the closet, Democrat or Republican, Foley’s behavior is inexcusable. However, you make a very good point about the vulnerability of Gay Republicans, even though this also affects heterosexual politicians who don’t espouse squeaky clean family values, such as Republican Senate candidate Jack Ryan, whose political career was ended over accusations that he wanted his actress wife to have sex with him in a sex club while others watched.

    Gay Republicans are in a bind. The official dogma of some conservatives is that homosexuality violates Christianity, and must not be tolerated, and also that gays are psychologically damaged and should seek a cure (here, these conservatives reject current medical opinion about gays as being another example of liberal political correctness and a failure to acknowledge both human nature and religion). We even have the absurdity of the military preferring straights with criminal records over qualified, blemish-free gays.

    It will be interesting to see whether Foley decides to become a candidate for the priesthood.

  • Clavos

    Imagine that, Jet:

    there are gays who are Republicans!!

  • Peter J

    RJ, note the key words “consenting adult”,
    not a 16 yr old.

    another great problem with the right, they see what they want to see

  • Clavos

    another great problem with the right, they see what they want to see

    Weird, isn’t it?

    Wonder why the left doesn’t do it?

  • http://www.futonreport.net/ Matthew T. Sussman

    “RJ, note the key words “consenting adult”,
    not a 16 yr old.”

    Ah, but:

    “The legal age of consent in DC is 16.”

    Owned.

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet In Columbus

    Clavos, it’s called the Log Cabin Society. I myself used to be republican, and my biggest presidential hero is still Gerald Ford for pardoning Nixon because it was the only way the country could move on even though it ruined his career.

    …but of course that’s only my opinion!

    Jet

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet In Columbus

    It’s a conspiracy damn it… can’t you see? The republicans set him up so those damned fags would feel sorry for him and the GOP would get the sympathetic gay vote!!!!!

    Those fiends!!!!

    …but of course that’s only my opinion!

    Jet

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Dave – some of the inaccuracies in your post are odd, since you are usually more careful about these things. D.C. law does not specify an age of consent for consensual homosexual conduct, so you cannot just assume that age sixteen applies equally for straights and gays.

    Actually, DC considered and rejected a measure to raise the consensual sex age to 18 for gay sex and it was rejected. That shows a clear intent that the same age apply to both gay and straight sex.

    Some of Foley’s conduct was consensual, but other pages complained, one of the page’s parents’ clearly complained, incoming pages were warned about him by their peers,

    These details weren’t available yesterday afternoon when I wrote the article.

    and his behavior was against Congressional rules.

    Likely true. But he did not have direct authority over the page, and by all accounts didn’t start bothering him until after he left the page program.

    His pattern of increasingly reckless behavior despite warnings from his superiors suggested that he was about to cross all kinds of ethical lines.

    Yes, I do agree that he showed incredibly poor judgement.

    I can’t find any news source that even suggests that Barney Frank was involved with his lover’s prostitution ring. There is also no money trail that connects him. I am not a fan of Frank, and while it is possible that Congress was reluctant to press to hard on this, the public record is the public record. Given Internet sources like “the Smoking Gun,” etc., anyone who claims that there is more to the Frank case than was released to the public is duty-bound to either put up or shut up.

    From what I’ve seen there’s a lot more information on the Frank case than came out at the time. It seems to be connected to another sex ring scandal from the same period involving people in the Reagan whitehouse. I’m not fully read up on it, but do a search for Paul Bonacci who was one of the kids passed around as part of the pedophilia ring and who testified about it some years later, and who testified to Frank’s involvement in orgies and child sex parties. There was a pretty detailed investigation of the scandal by the Washington Times, but it’s too old to be archived on their website.

    Dave

  • Alec

    Dave – RE: “… But he did not have direct authority over the page, and by all accounts didn’t start bothering him until after he left the page program.”

    This is not relevant and actually makes it worse in some ways. Foley’s actions here were not remotely consensual or welcomed. According to the news reports, “After the boy returned to his Louisiana home, the congressman e-mailed him. The teenager thought the messages were inappropriate, particularly one in which Foley asked the teen to send a picture of himself. The teen’s family contacted their congressman, Rep. Rodney Alexander, R-La., who then discussed the problem with Reynolds sometime this spring.”

    ABC News reported Friday that Foley also engaged in a series of sexually explicit instant messages with current and former pages, writing to one of them, “Do I make you a little horny?” In another, he is discussing masturbation techniques.

    What is particularly troubling about this is that pages apparently warned newcomers about Foley. This suggests an ongoing pattern of behavior. This also tends to underscore the unwelcome nature of many of Foley’s actions, as well as the possibility that pages felt that they had to put up with it, that they did not feel that they could prevent Foley from pestering them or go to anyone else about it, whether or not Foley had “direct authority” over them. The news reports also suggest that Foley would lie about his actions as just friendly mentoring, again undermining any view of his actions as generally mutual or consensual.

    RE: Paul Bonacci, Barney Frank, et al.

    Sorry, this sounds like conspiracy nutcase stuff, especially since one web site claims evidence of child prostitution and Satanism “with connections to the drug distribution/money laundering operations known as “Iran”-Contra which goes back to then Vice-President George Bush.”

    RE: “They can’t go out to gay bars for fear of being identified and they can’t have an openly gay domestic situation, so they look for whatever outlet they can find – which is likely to be at work. If they weren’t in the closet the whole problem would be much less severe.”

    I don’t think that this is not entirely true. Sometimes a politician’s “upright” behavior is a mask for the benefit of the rubes back home. Reporters and others often claim to know which politicians are drunks, have mistresses, are gay, etc. Also, gay publications like “The Advocate” have long debated the issue of outing closeted gay politicians who are either neutral or hostile to perceived gay interests even as they frequent gay bars, nightclubs and other venues or keep gay lovers on the side while pretending to be happily married heterosexuals.

    Columnist and blogger Andrew Sullivan’s recent post about Foley suggests the existence of a gay underground, many of whose members are known to each other: “I don’t know Foley, although, like any other gay man in D.C., I was told he was gay, closeted, afraid and therefore also screwed up.” However, while Sullivan goes on to express an idea similar to yours that Foley’s inability to live openly as a gay man may have contributed to his self-destructive behavior, I don’t completely buy it, just as I don’t buy any of the pathetic excuses offered up by the openly heterosexual men caught in a pedophile sting by “Dateline” as they chase after women who they thought were pre-teen girls.

  • Bliffle

    Dave: “But wait, there’s more. The legal age of consent in DC is 16. So even if he were having orgies with pages it would still be legal.

    There’s no crime here. Even if he had actually done anything he wouldn’t legally be a pedophile. End of story.”

    Thank god for the Legal Parsing of Dave Nalle! Now we can safely conclude that Foley committed only the Venal Sin of Homosexuality, not the Mortal Sin of Pedophilia!

    But wait! Has this passed the careful inspection of the other BC inmates who a few days ago were stridently asserting that Monica Lewinski was a mere child at 20-something? Several years older and of Legal Age in every state in the union?

    And is this a case of the Venal Sin of Moral Relativism or the Mortal Sin of Flipflopping? Or is it the other way around?

    What we need is a sort of Republican Pope to sit Ex Cathedra, wave his Holy Sceptre, and resolve these important points. Perhaps Monsignor Nalle will volunteer.

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet In Columbus

    I thought Jerry Falwell filled the position and that Pat Robertson filled in when he was on vacation?

  • http://counter-point.blogspot.com Scott

    “Plus, he’s by far the better candidate, though he’s no Jeb, unfortunately”

    Crist is creepy.

  • http://rjr10036.typepad.com Richard Rothstein

    It just gets keeping getting better and better: Republicans are like chocolate cake.

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ Elliott

    Sounds credible to me, actually. If the GOP had “outed” this guy, I would fully expect the next news cycle to be full of stories subtling calling Republicans “homophobic” and the like…

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ Elliott

    Er, “subtly” …

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com/ Michael J. West

    20 years ago, Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) got caught with his gigolo boyfriend running a male prostitution ring out of his apartment.

    As long as we’re talking about honesty, political and otherwise, perhaps this should be clarified.

    There was never any evidence produced that Frank himself was involved in the prostitution ring. Only his boyfriend, Steve Gobie, was running the ring, and in fact, before the story had even become public, Frank had found out about Gobie’s extracurricular activities, dumped him, and kicked him out of the house.

    In fact, what the Portland Mercury story you linked to gets wrong is that Frank wasn’t even censured. The 408-18 vote earned him a formal reprimand. Because, as I said, there was no evidence that he had had any knowledge of the prostitution ring.

    But perhaps your statement was poorly phrased, and you didn’t actually intend to implicate Rep. Frank?

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ Elliott

    This is, um, interesting. I don’t know whether to laugh or cry:

    Congressman Foley – “get a ruler and measure it for me”

    Underage Page – “ive already told you that”

    Congressman Foley – “tell me again”

    Underage Page – “7 and 1/2″

    Congressman Foley – “ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm”

    Congressman Foley – “beautiful”

    So he’s a size queen, too? :-/

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com/ Michael J. West

    I hadn’t read comment #37 when I made my last comment, so apologies for being largely redundant. Although, my point about Frank being reprimanded, not censured (due to lack of evidence), still stands. And that, like the pedophile vs. hebephile that RJ pointed out, is an important distinction.

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com/ Michael J. West

    Columnist and blogger Andrew Sullivan’s recent post about Foley suggests the existence of a gay underground, many of whose members are known to each other: “I don’t know Foley, although, like any other gay man in D.C., I was told he was gay, closeted, afraid and therefore also screwed up.”

    When we talk about “D.C.” is and a “gay undergroudn,” are we just talking about Congress, or the whole city? The D.C. that I live in has one of the largest, loudest, and most vibrant gay communities on the East Coast, not to mention the two openly gay men on the City Council.

  • http://www.futonreport.net/ Matthew T. Sussman

    RJ,

    When something almost reads as a parody, you know it’s rather twisted.

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ Elliott

    Speaking of (allegedly) closeted gay Republicans…

    Matt Drudge is on the air right now DEFENDING Foley…

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    We’re everywhere…

    Skulks away with an evil laugh and a pair of binoculars…….

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com/ Michael J. West

    We’re everywhere…

    Except Utah, anyway.

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    … Uh Michael… The Utah Pride Celebration is a five-day festival held in downtown Salt Lake City in June, celebrating Utah’s diversity. It includes the state’s second-largest parade. In 2004 an estimated 50,000 people attended, the largest since the festival began in 1977 when the “Salt Lake Coalition for Human Rights” sponsored a three day conference. In 1977, the keynote speakers were David Kopay, the first NFL player to come out of the closet, and Air Force Sgt. Leonard Matlovich, an ex-Mormon who was the first out gay person ever to appear on the cover of Time Magazine. Affirmation: Gay and Lesbian Mormons (then called “Gay Mormons United”) was also founded during this conference, on June 11, 1977.

    However, in 2005, the first year in which an admission was charged attendance at the festival was between 15,000 and 20,000. Some have contributed this decline to patrons not wanting to pay for the festival. Utah Pride organizers, however, argue that 2005 was the first year in which accurate method of counting the attendance were employed, and that the numbers did not reflect a drop in attendance.

  • MCH

    “He’ll have plenty of time talking to little boys when you’re living in a VAN DOWN BY THE RIVER!”
    – Matthew T. Sussman

    And while you’re gazing in a trance at the enlarged, framed letter to Sports Illustrated on your wall.

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ Elliott

    MCH, don’t you write about sports for a living? You know, high school volleyball games and such? Why won’t you provide a link to your Magnum Opus?

    Or do you prefer to anonymously cyber-stalk Blogcritics contributors?

  • Clavos

    RJ,

    Or do you prefer to anonymously cyber-stalk Blogcritics contributors?

    That’s a rhetorical question, right?

  • MCH

    Methinks thou art being a little hypocritical, Clavos, since you’re anonymous also.

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ Elliott

    Well, Foley’s “safe seat” looks pretty much lost at this point…but the Democrat who is likely to replace him, Tim Mahoney, better vote like a moderate once in office, or else his tenure in DC will last all of 2 years…

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    In fact, what the Portland Mercury story you linked to gets wrong is that Frank wasn’t even censured. The 408-18 vote earned him a formal reprimand.

    Thanks for clarifying this, Michael.

    Because, as I said, there was no evidence that he had had any knowledge of the prostitution ring.

    You seriously think the guy had a gay prostitute living with him and didn’t know he was involved in gay prostitution. Are you suggesting that Frank is monumentally stupid, because from what I’ve seen of him he seems pretty sharp.

    Dave

  • Alec

    RE: Underage Page – “7 and 1/2″
    Congressman Foley – “ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm”
    Congressman Foley – “beautiful”
    So he’s a size queen, too? :-/

    More like a size princess, I think.

    Michael – RE: “the existence of a gay underground…” Andrew Sullivan says that he was told that Foley was gay and closeted, not that he was surprised to learn that Foley was gay and closeted. Neither Sullivan nor anyone else ever revealed what they knew about Foley. I presume that D.C. is like Los Angeles, New York or any other major city with a sizeable number of gays in that it is possible for a politician to be in the closet for the sake of the ignorant rubes back home, while also having an active gay social life, with most people being discrete or actively protecting the politician’s secret.

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Re:RE: Underage Page – “7 and 1/2″
    Congressman Foley – “ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

    Wouldn’t the fact that the Page answered the inquirey make him a willing participant in the conversation, in fact by giving his measurement fact or fiction wouldn’t it make the Page out as encouraging the congressman?

    …but of course that’s only my opinion!

    Jet

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com/ Michael J. West

    You seriously think the guy had a gay prostitute living with him and didn’t know he was involved in gay prostitution.

    We’re all about making distinctions on this thread, so let’s point out the distinction between “involved in gay prostitution” and “running a prostitution ring out of the house.” As for Frank, I’d also suggest a distinction between “monumentally stupid” and “willfully naive.”

    I’m suggesting that even the most partisan and staunchest supporters of Frank in Congress would have voted for a full censure if they’d had reason to believe he was helping to run a prostitution ring. As it was, the reprimand they voted on was in response to Frank getting Gobie’s parking tickets dismissed.

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com/ Michael J. West

    Jet #53:

    It was a joke. Not a very good one, obviously.

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Uh, considering that Barney Frank also lives and works in D.C. it’s completely possible that something could be run out of his home hundreds of miles away and he wouldn’t know about it.

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    So am I too trusting of you and your sources, or just naive there Michael?

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com/ Michael J. West

    Well, it was Frank’s house in DC, out of which the ring was being run…

    I don’t understand, Jet. Are you asking me to list my sources? Or am I stupid and missing the point?

  • http://www.futonreport.net/ Matthew T. Sussman

    “It was a joke. Not a very good one, obviously.”

    Well, Mr. West, the following diagram will prove this statement is untrue:

    Humor
    ———-
    Jet’s Head

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com/ Michael J. West

    I appreciate it, Suss, but I’m pretty sure it was just a lousy joke.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    I’m suggesting that even the most partisan and staunchest supporters of Frank in Congress would have voted for a full censure if they’d had reason to believe he was helping to run a prostitution ring.

    I didn’t say he was helping to run a prostitution ring, just that there’s every reason to believe that he was aware that a prostitution ring was being run under his roof. Remember that he invited Gobie in with the knowledge that Gobie was a prostitute, and probably with an awareness that Gobie had a criminal record which included the sale of drugs and of underage pornography. If Frank did NOT know these things, that’s almost as irresponsible as living with Gobie while knowing of them.

    Dave

  • Clavos

    emmy:

    Methinks thou art being a little hypocritical, Clavos, since you’re anonymous also.

    With a very few exceptions, we’re ALL anonymous, since you have no way of verifying that those with “names” (or what appear to be names) for handles are actually using their real names.

    And except for you, emmy, I don’t stalk.

  • Nancy

    In Hawaii, Idaho, and South Carolina, the age of consent is only 14 – but that it’s legal doesn’t make it RIGHT. Anyone pursuing someone under the age of 18, or someone who is subject to them for future references, etc. is indeed a skank & a maggot. Even less excusable are those in the GOP leadership who have deliberately sat on this information, hoping against hope it wouldn’t surface, apparently.

    VOTE GOP – the party with NO principles, it would seem

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Suss, I know it’s getting more and more difficult to bury and disguise the love you have for me, but please keep trying…

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Michael… it was meant as a straight out compliment that I take you at your word. That’s not sarcasm it was respect… well at least it was.

  • JustOneMan

    So…Nancy now its your anti-gay bias showing…

    Hey all the guy was doing is what all healthy normal gay men do…look for some action and recruit some new members…

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com/ Michael J. West

    Jet, now you’re just picking on me. :-)

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Wait Michael, I’ll go put my leather on…

  • JustOneMan

    gee…this is turning into a mens room on the NJ Turnpike

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com Silas Kain

    Once again when it comes to all matters homosexual, these threads go off on a tangent that differs widely from the subject at hand. Let’s look at Representative Mark Foley and the issues for a moment:

    • Rep. Foley is in all likelihood gay. He probably hates himself for it and lives on the fringes of gay life so as not to upset the conservative, fundamentalist ilk that he represents. He’ll end up blaming his “disease” on the horrors of alcohol. Dear God, tequila made him queer.
    • Rep. Foley’s behavior is and was completely inappropriate. It doesn’t matter if the page were male or female. Any duly elected representative to Congress has a moral obligation to represent his/her district in an appropriate manner. Let’s get off the “faggot” kick and call it for what it is – conduct unbecoming a member of Congress – gay, straight or Fundamentalist.
    • The fact that the GOP leadership in the House failed to act in a timely manner is indicative of the duality we have in Congress today. Were Foley a member of the Democrat Party, GOP leadership would have been up his ass faster than he would have been up the page. Now that the truth is revealed, the GOP members will draw and quarter Foley. They’ll forget about the good party boy he has been. They’ll forget all the good work he may have delivered in the last 12 years. All of that is eclipsed by the scandal. And if anyone for one minute thinks that Foley is the last of them queer Republicans, think again. Washington is a funny place, my friends.
    • The behavior of GOP leadership in Foley’s case is indicative of a far more sinister problem; that being no loyalty or sense of honor. So the guy messed up. Oops, it was with a boy! Let’s crucify him today! Folks, I’m not minimizing what Foley has done but how the GOP leadership responds presents a far clearer picture of just how loyal our representatives are to us.

    As far as this place being like the Men’s Room on the NJ Turnpike, it’s obvious you’ve never been to the men’s room on the ground floor of the Rayburn Office Building.

  • SHARK

    Didn’t read the comments, but read Nalle’s opinion.

    If it’s been said before, forgive me:

    1) Nalle, until you understand the difference between a sane, average gay man who “comes out” vs an online child predator/pederast, SHUT THE FUCK UP. What you’ve said is UNFUCKING-BELIEVABLE and oh, did I mention:

    despicable?

    Jeezus~!

    2) Nalle’s/Hastert’s/TonySnow’s [“naughty emails”] response demonstrates the depth of illness in the current GOP/political nervous system: in order to STAY IN POWER, THESE FUCKERS WILL SAY AND DO ANYTHING.

    3) Nalle wants his GOP pals to “grow some balls” — [how fucking clever!] and “come out of the closet.”

    Lesseee, he’s addressing the God/Flag/Creationist Family Values political party…

    Nalle’s Next Article:

    “Jews in SS Gestapo ranks “come out of the closet” and open a Yamulke Booth at Oktoberfest”

    Feh.

    Nalle, seriously, for justifying this come-here-little-boy shit of Foley’s by equating it with a relationship among consenting adult homosexuals makes THIS THE MOST HEINOUS, SICKENING, STUPID SHIT you’ve ever written on BC. [and that’s saying alot!]

    You should apologize to the community — and then seek help. Seriously.

  • JustOneMan

    Hypocrit!!!
    “Rep. Foley’s behavior is and was completely inappropriate”

    How can someone who states that they are for freedom of sexual orientation call Foley’s behavior “completely inappropriate”. By doing so you are admitting your pro-Gay stance is illegitamate..which it is

    And you were the one who lowered the level of discussion with your “leather” comment so dont blame others….

  • SHARK

    Now – I read the comments.

    Ho fucking hum. More distractions, including th too-be-expected “funny” bits from that lovable sports frat-boy Sussman. Yall have a hard time with lineral thinking, don’t cha? A buncha ADD-addled lunatics who think that because they can type, it shows they can think.

    Guess what…

    RJ pauses to note — like the GOP leadership did last fall — “What are the implications for his Florida Election race? Holy moly. Let’s get our priorities straight!”

    ~fuck you. You’re now part of the problem. But kudos for staying with the Party Mentality.

    And fuck the rest of *you: shouldn’t you be debating whether Clinton or Bush took less action to stop Osama?

    zzzzzzzzzzzz….

    Keep your eye on the swinging pocketwatch, America.

    *well, not you ; )

  • Lumpy

    You really are a headcase, shark. Don’t you think that a mass coming out would have a strong positive impact in shaking up the GOP and putting it on a better track?

  • Lumpy

    Or are you just so caught up in your hatred of republicans that improving the party is of no interest to you? Or do you think we should just have a one-party state with no GOP?

  • Baronius

    Silas, these comments have gone on several tangents. But homosexuality isn’t a tangent in the original article; it’s the subject. As for the rest of your comments, you seem to say that the GOP was wrong to go after Foley, to not go after Foley, to go after Democrats, and to go after Republicans. You’ve lost me.

  • nugget

    how much longer do you people think it will be before shark pulls a Charles Roberts??

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ Elliott

    There must be a thousand different ways to look at this. And every single one of them will be blogged!

    Honestly, one of the most pertinent things to point out about this situation is the power of the Blogosphere.

    20 years ago, this likely would have been covered up by the MSM and then dealt with secretly and internally by the powers-that-be. And even if it was brought out into the open by the MSN, there would only be a couple of sources presenting a couple of versions of the situation, and offering a couple of ways to think about it.

    Today, thankfully, we are able to look at this matter from all sides, because we are receiving reporting from scores of different angles and sources. And the gatekeepers of the MSM are impotent to do anything about it.

    Hooray for the Bloggernaut!

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Nice to see Silas visiting us again. Not so nice to see Shark and his complex of misdirected rage and personal insults.

    Before I address anything specific, let me point out YET AGAIN that I wrote this article before most of the specifics about the instant messages, chats, emails and the extent or duration of the problem had been made public. I wrote the article the afternoon of the day the first information leaked out. Three days have passed since then, and obviously new facts have come to light whcih present Foley in an enormously more negative light.

    That said, my main point remains that the closeted culture of gay Republicanism to some extent directs people like Foley into this kind of lifestyle and creates an environment where the manifestations of homosexualitty are enormously more negative than the would be in the open.

    1) Nalle, until you understand the difference between a sane, average gay man who “comes out” vs an online child predator/pederast, SHUT THE FUCK UP. What you’ve said is UNFUCKING-BELIEVABLE and oh, did I mention:

    despicable?

    And did I mention that you could be a bit less judgmental when you don’t know the context of the article? Is there no conclusion too stupid for you to leap to in your headlong rush to express unreasoning outrage at every fucking opportunity?

    2) Nalle’s/Hastert’s/TonySnow’s [“naughty emails”] response demonstrates the depth of illness in the current GOP/political nervous system: in order to STAY IN POWER, THESE FUCKERS WILL SAY AND DO ANYTHING.

    What the hell does this have to do with anything I wrote? I suggested honesty. GOD FORBID that the GOP should be so evil as to be honest in order to win elections.

    3) Nalle wants his GOP pals to “grow some balls” — [how fucking clever!] and “come out of the closet.”

    Lesseee, he’s addressing the God/Flag/Creationist Family Values political party…

    So you say. I thought I was addressing the individual liberty and smaller government party that lost its way.

    Nalle, seriously, for justifying this come-here-little-boy shit of Foley’s by equating it with a relationship among consenting adult homosexuals makes THIS THE MOST HEINOUS, SICKENING, STUPID SHIT you’ve ever written on BC. [and that’s saying alot!]

    So long as you’re posting I’m in no danger of claiming the stupidity crown, Shark. The only thing I’ve said which in any way fits the assertion you make here is that the pages in question were over the legal age of consent – a fact – and relevant because whether Foley’s behavior was criminal or just immoral is important.

    Dave

  • SHARK

    (I’m shocked that no gay readers called you on it, and that some even complimented you on your terrific “story”!)

    ======

    NALLE: “…my main point remains that the closeted culture of gay Republicanism to some extent directs people like Foley into this kind of lifestyle…”

    JESUS! There ya go again~

    My main point, you stupid fucker, is that “closeted gay culture” has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH PREYING ON CHILDREN FOR SEX.

    Ethical, Moral, Mentally Healthy Homosexual AND/OR straight 50 YEAR OLD ADULTS don’t go around trying to put the make on children.

    Can I be more clear on this?

    =========

    SHARK: “IN ORDER TO STAY IN POWER, THESE FUCKERS WILL SAY AND DO ANYTHING.”

    NALLE: “…I suggested honesty. GOD FORBID that the GOP should be so evil as to be honest in order to win elections.”

    Oh come on, Nalle, DON’T PLAY COY WITH ME: I read yer crap;

    you “suggested” Conservative GOP GAYS “come out of the closet” — um, so they wouldn’t be “directed” into Foley’s “LIFESTYLE” ie. hitting on young underage boys.

    And meanwhile — implicit in your “suggestion”, you attempted to equate a predatory sexual encounter with a child ~with~ a homosexual relationship between two consenting adults.

    It’s NOT ABOUT FOLEY BEING GAY.

    It’s about him being a pedophile.

    A healthy homosexual is a little bit different than a pedophile.

    Anyway, these are TWO DISTINCTLY DIFFERENT ISSUES:

    1) you wanna suggest that a bunch of chickenshit CLOSETED, gay-bashing, marriage amendment-pushing, Bible-thumping, opportunistic Log Cabinish Republicans “come out of the closet” so they can live honest, authentic, happier, truer lives… despite the fact that as “queers” — they would be about as welcome at the local GOP Prayer Breakfast as steaming bowl of Anthrax served on Mary Cheney’s used Kotex — well, fine, preach to the few fucked up “jews” who still serve in the Gestapo. Good luck, too. I’d love to see a “gayer” GOP.

    ~BUT…

    2) You wanna suggest that BEING A CLOSETED GAY “directs people like Foley into this kind of lifestyle” [a CHILD SEXUAL PREDATOR] — then I’M GONNA TELL YOU YER FULL OF SHIT.

    ========

    Nalle: “…the pages in question were over the legal age of consent…”

    Yeah, okay, they were 16 years old, Nalle, and UNDER THE LEGAL OBLIGATION AND CARE OF THE U.S. CONGRESS — who were their virtual guardians/surrogate parents…

    — and the fact that you even have the fucking audacity to mention that — “well, heck, in D.C. 16 is legal age of consent, huhuh…” makes it easy for me to, once again, say:

    “IN ORDER TO STAY IN POWER, THESE FUCKERS WILL SAY AND DO ANYTHING.”

    ========

    NALLE: “…whether Foley’s behavior was criminal or just immoral is important.”

    Not really, Nalle. Unlike you, I don’t practice moral relativism: immoral behavior WITH CHILDREN, especially from someone with an extraordinary amount of power of others, and especially with an extraordinary amount of obligations to SERVE his community is just plain fucking IMMORAL, Dave.

    One doesn’t have to be a genius, a Republican, or a Democrat to figure that out.

    We should drag him outta his “rehab” clinic and CUT OFF HIS DICK.

    And if you had any brains, balls, or integrity, you would agree — and STOP TRYING TO JUSTIFY FOLEY’S ACTIONS.

  • SHARK

    Lumpy: “You really are a headcase, shark. Don’t you think that a mass coming out would have a strong positive impact in shaking up the GOP and putting it on a better track?”

    Lumpy, try to imagine a universe where you’re a fucking headcase for even seriously suggesting someone ponder such a thought for more than a nanosecond.

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    Baronius: Silas, these comments have gone on several tangents. But homosexuality isn’t a tangent in the original article; it’s the subject. As for the rest of your comments, you seem to say that the GOP was wrong to go after Foley, to not go after Foley, to go after Democrats, and to go after Republicans. You’ve lost me.

    GOP was not wrong to go after Foley but wrong in their approach. You see, if Foley had done with a female page there would be an entirely different approach by the GOP Leadership. Say it was a female page. Hastert’s reaction would have been, “Thank God. It could have been a boy.” No member of Congress should be allowed to come on to any page regardless of sex or age. That should be completely verbotten. The GOP is scared shitless that they’ll lose control of Congress and will sell anyone down the river to maintain power. That, sir, is treason in my eyes.

  • Bliffle

    Baronius: “Silas, these comments have gone on several tangents. But homosexuality isn’t a tangent in the original article; it’s the subject.”

    No it isn’t: it’s about pederasty and abuse of power.

    But I see the clever plan: convert the Mortal Sin of pedophilia into the (merely) venal sin of homos*xuality. One can loath homos while allowing them to rule.

    Now Foley and pals are striving to get the charge reduced to boozeing.

    Piffle.

  • http://foleyfoley larry

    i live in az. jim kobe was outed by an oppoent who had no chance of winning the election . the people of az did not care. he was a good representative.. he was greatly admired. now to mr. foley. i see now that he hasihiding out in rehab. that seems to become popular with notable people who want to get out of limelight.i assume he is in one the country cclub centers. with massages and tennis courts

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    But I see the clever plan: convert the Mortal Sin of pedophilia into the (merely) venal sin of homos*xuality. One can loath homos while allowing them to rule.

    God save the queens.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    SHARK, do you just not get basic logic or is it come sort of an act you put on?

    My main point, you stupid fucker, is that “closeted gay culture” has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH PREYING ON CHILDREN FOR SEX.

    And this case has nothing to do with preying on children for sex either. This case is about opportunistic sex and abuse of power and it is absolutely the result of closeted gay culture.

    Because Foley was closeted he had to look for sex where he could find it privately and with people he could control and manipulate. It’s likely that he didn’t turn to pedophilia/hebephilia out of preference, but out of necessity. He didn’t go looking for 8 year olds, he went after people old enough to make sexual choices but young enough to be easily manipulated.

    Ethical, Moral, Mentally Healthy Homosexual AND/OR straight 50 YEAR OLD ADULTS don’t go around trying to put the make on children.

    I agree. Foley certainly was being immoral, unethical and mentally unhealthy, but you’re going after him as a pedophile when he focusted on young but sexually mature targets, not actual children.

    you “suggested” Conservative GOP GAYS “come out of the closet” — um, so they wouldn’t be “directed” into Foley’s “LIFESTYLE” ie. hitting on young underage boys.

    Yes I did, because these are NOT underage boys. It’s the same situation as you have with McGreevey, where he kept it in the office and with a subordinate. It’s all about control and protecting yourself, it’s not about the ‘pedophilia’.

    It’s NOT ABOUT FOLEY BEING GAY.

    It’s about him being a pedophile.

    It’s not about either, it’s about him being in the closet.

    1) you wanna suggest that a bunch of chickenshit CLOSETED, gay-bashing, marriage amendment-pushing, Bible-thumping, opportunistic Log Cabinish Republicans “come out of the closet” so they can live honest, authentic, happier, truer lives… despite the fact that as “queers” — they would be about as welcome at the local GOP Prayer Breakfast as steaming bowl of Anthrax served on Mary Cheney’s used Kotex — well, fine, preach to the few fucked up “jews” who still serve in the Gestapo. Good luck, too. I’d love to see a “gayer” GOP.

    I think you’re very wrong about how they would be received by most in the GOP. The religious extremists are still a minority and the gay faction in the party has a lot more power than people realize.

    2) You wanna suggest that BEING A CLOSETED GAY “directs people like Foley into this kind of lifestyle” [a CHILD SEXUAL PREDATOR] — then I’M GONNA TELL YOU YER FULL OF SHIT.

    Then you’re going to be wrong.

    Yeah, okay, they were 16 years old, Nalle, and UNDER THE LEGAL OBLIGATION AND CARE OF THE U.S. CONGRESS — who were their virtual guardians/surrogate parents…

    Well, then they were doomed from the get-go.

    Not really, Nalle. Unlike you, I don’t practice moral relativism: immoral behavior WITH CHILDREN, especially from someone with an extraordinary amount of power of others, and especially with an extraordinary amount of obligations to SERVE his community is just plain fucking IMMORAL, Dave.

    I never said it wasn’t immoral. I agree, it’s immoral for a whole bunch of reasons you don’t even seem to grasp. But it’s not illegal.

    We should drag him outta his “rehab” clinic and CUT OFF HIS DICK.

    And if you had any brains, balls, or integrity, you would agree — and STOP TRYING TO JUSTIFY FOLEY’S ACTIONS.

    I haven’t said one thing to justify his actions. Not anywhere on this thread. I’m just trying to look at them realistically. And I agree that the alcohol rehab ploy is transparent and weak.

    Dave

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    And now to add some bizarre perspective to the issue…

    I was driving in my truck with my teenage daughter when coverage of the Foley case came on. Turns out she’d already heard about it from friends at school, so we had a little discussion about it.

    Much to my surprise, she blamed the pages for the whole thing. Her comments were to the effect that the gay 16 year olds she knows are entirely aware of what they’re doing sexually and that anyone who’s sixteen knows how to deal with sexual predators online. She suggested that the pages were essentially leading Foley on, because if they were uncomfortable with his sexual IMing, why did they keep engaging in it when they could have blocked his messages? She also came up with the idea – which hadn’t occured to me – that based on the snippets of the IMs she’d had heard repeated to her at school – she thought it was entirely possible that the pages didn’t like Foley and set him up.

    Interesting perspective which surprised the hell out of me.

    Dave

  • SHARK

    Bliffle NAILS NALLE’s simplistic sleight of hand: “…But I see the clever plan: convert the Mortal Sin of pedophilia into the (merely) venal sin of homos*xuality. One can loath homos while allowing them to rule.”

    Nalle on Foley: “…I haven’t said one thing to justify his actions.”

    Nalle on Foley: “…this case has nothing to do with preying on children for sex either….
    This case is about opportunistic sex and abuse of power…
    …the result of closeted gay culture.
    …Because Foley was closeted he had to look for sex where he could find it…
    …he didn’t turn to pedophilia/hebephilia out of preference, but out of necessity.”

    NALLE, YER FULL OF SHIT — and yer the one who needs lessons in “Logic”!

    Look, Plato, I know you don’t leave the ol’ gated community very often, but you’re aware that many “closeted” gay men have relationships with other gay MEN?

    Y’know, like… over 18?

    Some closeted?

    Some not?

    ALL THE FUCKING TIME.

    Surely you’ve heard that.

    APOLOGIZE to the Blogcritics community, NALLE.

  • SHARK

    Nalle, being TOTALLY OBLIVIOUS to what sort of character he and his little cracker spawn happen to BE: “…And now to add some bizarre perspective to the issue… my teenage daughter… Turns out she’d already heard about it [Foley-Gate] from friends at school, so we had a little discussion about it. Much to my surprise, she blamed the pages for the whole thing.”

    Why be surprised, Nalle?

    When you start defending Foley by saying he was just a closeted gay male who couldn’t find a date — you’re only a step away from saying the woman WHO GOT RAPED ASKED FOR IT.

    [Personal attack deleted] Have a nice day.

    SHARK

  • SHARK

    Nalle, of all the people I’ve met who can at least claim to be sane, you are most deluded person ever.

    EVER.

    You lecture me on logic — and can’t even parse YOUR OWN WORDS?

    Look, Nalle, you’re so fucking deluded, you THINK you’re saying one thing: [GOP gays would be better off coming out — ie. finding love somewhere other than a friggin’ High School campus] — but what you’re REALLY SAYING is that CLOSETED GAY MEN are “forced” to have sex with children because their sexual preference is ‘secret’.

    That’s despicable. It’s a justification for priest predators and all others who pick on children of their own sex.

    Once again, Nalle, it’s not about homosexuality; it’s about TRYING TO FUCK children — REGARDLESS OF whether it’s from a “straight” or “gay” “perspective”.

    Try driving your pickup OUT OF YOUR OWN LITTLE REALITY TUNNEL — and then read yer own shit above.

    It’s horrible, Dave.

  • http://www.dailykos.com/user/souldrift JP

    More power to them.. I’d love to see some Republicans in Red State Georgia come out and admit that, we’d have more Democrats in office.

  • Nancy

    Why is it that when any politician gets in trouble, the first thing they do is dive into a rehab clinic? Do they seriously think having a drinking problem – or CLAIMING they have a drinking/drug problem – exonerates them & makes their illegal behavior OK or more acceptable? Got news for them: it doesn’t.

    Vote for the GOP, Party of No Principles, if you support corruption, coverups, cronyism, influence-peddling, bribery, simony, pederasty, lying, arrogance, and failure.

  • Donnie Marler

    “Why is it that when any politician gets in trouble, the first thing they do is dive into a rehab clinic? Do they seriously think having a drinking problem – or CLAIMING they have a drinking/drug problem – exonerates them & makes their illegal behavior OK or more acceptable? Got news for them: it doesn’t.”

    Excellent questions. I’ll ask Ted Kennedy if I ever meet him.
    Representative Foley may have been within the law but his behavior shows a serious lack of judgement and common sense.

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com/ Michael J. West

    It’s easy to say Foley is a liar and a creep and we’re better off with him out of Congress, but that misses the big picture.

    Perhaps so, but it should be said anyway.

    Foley is a liar and a creep and we’re better off with him out of Congress.

  • Nancy

    I’m not defending Kennedy: IMO he should have resigned all public life after the Chappaquiddick episode, let alone the others that came after. I’m commenting that recently, whenever a public figure does anything wrong – especially if it involves trouble with the law – he immediately declares he’s checking himself into a drug/alcohol rehab clinic. Ney did it, now Foley is doing it, etc. As if they think that excuses them to the public: “Oh, I was drinking, so I didn’t know what I was doing, etc.” bullshit bullshit bullshit.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com/ handyguy

    Throughout all the self-righteous press coverage and calls from Congressional ‘leaders’ for investigations, waft two very unpleasant odors: of homophobia [pretending not to be so], and of politically motivated hypocrisy.

    I am, more or less, a Democrat, but Nancy Pelosi et al can’t convincingly pretend that their loud cries of indignation are about anything other than trying to win the House, and this nauseates me.

    It’s always entertaining to watch panicked politicians scurrying, especially if they are Republicans, but there is also a depressing quality to this particular scandal, because it is bringing out latent antigay sentiment in the press and public. (And possibly in a few posters on this thread…?)

    The e-mails that originally came to light, sent to the Louisiana boy, were not objectionable in themselves. The reaction of the boy and his parents must have been so negative because they knew [or perceived] Foley to be gay.

    Of course, the later revelations of much more explcit IM’s, and apparently even an attempted rendezvous, are considerably more disturbing. But if it’s true that Hastert et al didn’t know about the worse behavior, as they claim, then the shrill cries about their failing to protect children to preserve their power ring false.

    No one comes out of this one looking or smelling pretty.

  • Clavos

    Nancy says #103:

    I’m commenting that recently, whenever a public figure does anything wrong – especially if it involves trouble with the law – he immediately declares he’s checking himself into a drug/alcohol rehab clinic. Ney did it, now Foley is doing it, etc. As if they think that excuses them to the public: “Oh, I was drinking, so I didn’t know what I was doing, etc.” bullshit bullshit bullshit.

    Actually, Nancy, they do it to get themselves out of the public eye and away from the reporters, in hopes that things will die down somewhat by the time they come back out.

  • Clavos

    If someone were to disable sharky’s caps lock key, he’d be mute.

  • MCH

    “With a very few exceptions, we’re ALL anonymous, since you have no way of verifying that those with “names” (or what appear to be names) for handles are actually using their real names.”
    – Clavos

    But surely “RJ Elliott” is not a fake name, is it?

  • Clavos

    emmy,

    Why ask me? If it’s important to you, ask him.

  • Bliffle

    “Throughout all the self-righteous press coverage and calls from Congressional ‘leaders’ for investigations, waft two very unpleasant odors: of homophobia [pretending not to be so]…”

    If this is homophobia, then are we to conclude that all the unpleasantness about Clinton/Monica a few years ago was heterophobia?

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Shark, I appreciate your ranting, your personal attacks and your sincerity. But you’re just fucking wrong.

    There’s no pedophilia here. 16 year olds are sexually mature both legally and physiologically. They know their sexual preferences and they know how to make decisions. I’m surprised that someone from a group like OutYouth isn’t on here reading your reactionary ass the riot act.

    I do love the bizarre role reversal, where I’m the one taking the liberal position and defending gay rights and you’re the one calling homosexuality a ‘venal sin’. Take a pause for a moment – what gives you the idea that homosexuality is a sin at all?

    You’re also dead wrong on what the real crime here is. It’s the abuse of power that’s the crime, and that’s a result of Foley being in the closet and using the power he had over the pages to protect himself, essentially making them into a private harem.

    I forgot about the larger history of this when I wrote the article, but there was actually a very similar incident in 1983 when Representative Gerry Studds had sex with a 17 year old male intern and was exposed. His response was to come out, admit it – he even held a press conference with the page – and accept censure. He was then reelected and served five more terms after the scandal, and retired voluntarily.

    Dave

  • SHARK

    Nalle: “…you’re the one calling homosexuality a ‘venal sin’.”

    I never said such a thing. Biffle said it, and he was being sarcastic.

    =====

    As far as me “being wrong” — I’m done with you on this thread, Nalle. I’ve parsed and exposed your bullshit and you’re still trying to spin it.

    We got yer points, Nalle:

    1) closeted gay republicans are “forced” into a lifestyle that includes hitting on young, vulnerable boys.

    2) If they “came out” — they’d be less likely to be trolling the internet for sex with kids.

    3) Blame the victim. (or was that yer brilliant daughter who said that? BTW: hold old is she, Nalle? Wonder how you’d feel if I asked what she’s wearing right now? “Send me a picture? Do I make you horny?” feh. You’d be loading yer little musket.

    So, in conclusion:

    Yer a hypocrite.
    Yer shameless.
    Yer full of shit.
    …and YER WRONG.

    ~NEXT!

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Shark, I’m not wrong, you just don’t agree with me. Not the same thing. Your assertion that I’m wrong because I don’t agree with your illogical puritanism doesn’t actually prove anything.

    And my daughter is 14, about to turn 15. And it’s a 30-06 not a musket. But she still has a better grasp on this issue than you do at 4 times her age. Her main point is that the actions of the pages in continuing to chat with him make it clear that beyond the initial contact, this activity was CONSENSUAL.

    Dave

  • http://adreamersholiday.blogspot.com Lee Richards

    Dave, I truly don’t want to be unpleasant or offensive, but are you saying that you would have no problem with a teacher, coach or neighbor–male or female–who made inappropriate comments or suggestions to your daughter at age 14, 15, or 16 as long as she continued to respond and all communication was consensual?

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Lee, I would certainly have a problem with it under any circumstances under the legal age of consent, and over that age I would still have personal concerns as a family matter. If my daughter were a couple of years older, I’d be concerned, but I’d expect her to be responsible enough to deal with such a situation intelligently, or to make me aware of it so I could deal with it for her. Hell, I’d be concerned if she was 24 and wanted to marry a 50 year old, but I do know the limits of what’s reasonable parental concern and what’s not.

    Over the legal age of consent but below the age of majority it’s a private matter for the people involved, NOT a public issue – except insofar as people use it as a way to judge Foley’s character. This is the argument which Studds made in 1983 and which seemed to convince a lot of people. Which leaves the primary issue Foley’s abuse of power and sexual harassment, which isn’t limited by age or even the appearance of consent.

    Dave

  • Baronius

    Shark, it’s worth noting that Nalle isn’t calling for honesty. He wants honesty after the last vote is counted. For all his talk about the GOP being gay-friendly (and he’s righter than you may think), he wants to keep the religious types duped for a few more months until it’s “safe” to come out of the closet.

    As for Nalle’s support of perfectly legal, wholesome, moral sex with sixteen-year-olds…words fail me.

  • http://adreamersholiday.blogspot.com Lee Richards

    Dave, Doesn’t it become a public rather than private issue when this guy is speaking for and voting on laws to regulate on-line access of sexual predators, and being paid a handsome salary from public funds?

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    Now Foley’s blaming the Church. Unless he nails Falwell or Robertson I don’t want to her it. Foley is a coward and a low life scum sucking douchebag. May he spend eternity as a sex slave to a dominant female.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Dave, Doesn’t it become a public rather than private issue when this guy is speaking for and voting on laws to regulate on-line access of sexual predators, and being paid a handsome salary from public funds?

    Which is why he should be out of the closet so that his sexuality can’t be used to pressure him. And his personal life is stil personal even if he’s a public legislator. And if people don’t like his personal activities and predilections they should vote him out of office.

    Foley presumably resigned from pure shame, but if he’d stayed in office it might have been even better for him to be crushed in the election next month so the people would have a chance to send a message by kicking him out.

    Dave

  • Dan

    “…if he’d stayed in office it might have been even better for him to be crushed in the election next month so the people would have a chance to send a message by kicking him out.”

    well, his name will still be on the ballot, thanks to the convienient 11th hour exposure of his picadilo. A vote for him will really mean a vote for his Republican replacement.

    Hopefully, perenial Republican voters won’t be fooled by this coniving political trick.

  • nugget

    Shark, if there wasn’t a comment policy forbidding me to do so, I’d call you a complete idiot. You misrepresent Dave’s reasoning because you think he’s a homophobe. Even if he isn’t particularly fond of homosexuals, he’s not equating homosexuality with pedophilia. You’re unfair and ridiculously incapable of keeping it together.

  • Bliffle

    Gee Dave, if it’s alright for Foley to go after this teenage page then it was alright for our highschool teacher to go after my best friend T, which screwed his understanding of sex and love and resulted in his death 20 years later by his own hand. And, I guess, it was alright for the baseball coach my teenage son trusted to go after him, too, which screwed his understanding of sex and love and resulted in his death 20 years later by his own hand.

    Go to hell Nalle.

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    I am the product of sexual abuse by a male pedophile. For years it clouded my judgement when it came to love, sexuality and self-worth. I am gay. I was born this way. The predator who sexually violated me used my gay nature to his advantage. Though there are scars, I am sufficiently healed. Many times I could have taken my own life. I didn’t. One of the reasons why that is the case is because I didn’t allow myself to fall victim to the religious and political leaders who tried to paint me as an aberration. Thank God there were members of my family who loved me more than they cared about what the neighbors thought. Before blaming homos for those who die at their own hand, take a look at those around them who “loved” them unconditionally.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    well, his name will still be on the ballot, thanks to the convienient 11th hour exposure of his picadilo. A vote for him will really mean a vote for his Republican replacement.

    By all accounts, Joe Negron – who’s replacing Foley in the election – is a good candidate, probably better than Foley. He’s more of a traditional republican and not one of the hardcore religious types.

    Dave

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    You misrepresent Dave’s reasoning because you think he’s a homophobe. Even if he isn’t particularly fond of homosexuals, he’s not equating homosexuality with pedophilia. You’re unfair and ridiculously incapable of keeping it together.

    I didn’t even realize Shark was trying to suggest that I was a homophobe. It’s such a ludicrous idea that I couldn’t believe that even Shark would be that dumb. Now that you bring it up I guess that could have been what he was trying to say, though how he could reach that conclusion based on anything I’ve written is mystifying.

    Dave

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Bliffle, I haven’t said it was alright for Foley to make sexual advances to pages, just that they were of legal age. It’s not alright because it was an abuse of power and sexual harassment. That seems to be the case in the two personal examples you cite as well. The point being that even if consensual sexual discussion with these teens was legal, it’s still inappropriate.

    Dave

  • http://www.futonreport.net/ Matthew T. Sussman

    Yes you did, Dave. You enjoyed their congressman-on-page liaison. You watched it through binoculars and loved every minute of it. You wallpapered your foyer with the IM transcript. You relished in the unbridled carnal passion. Admit it.

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    Oh, Mr. Sussman! Are you a gay porn writer? The unbridled carnal passion made me hot.

  • http://www.futonreport.net/ Matthew T. Sussman

    Shhhh.

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Did I just hear a cat hissing?

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Actually, Suss. I haven’t read the full transcript of the IMs. Could you unstick the pages of yours and pass it over for me?

    Dave

  • MCH

    “Foley is a coward and a low life scum sucking douchebag. May he spend eternity as a sex slave to a dominant female.”

    Or to Dave Nalle.

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    Hey. If Nalle were batting for my team I’d be his sex slave.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    If I were batting for your team I’d rather have you as a co-equal partner, Silas. Sex slavery is best left to the Saudis – they do it best.

    Dave

  • nugget

    dave: That’s what he’s insinuating. He thinks that you’re maliciously and stupidly comparing homosexuality to pedophilia.

    This is, of course (according to Shark), because the dank squalid side of your brain probably equates the two. He’s just paranoid and needs the delusion of rhetorical triumph and/or moral justification over people he feels threatened by. (e.g. you)

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Thanks for enlightening me, nugget. Perhaps he thinks others equate homosexuality with pedophilia because that inclination secretly lurks in the back of his own fevered mind.

    Of course, part of the problem probably arises from the fact that he’s a moral absolutist who thinks someone who’s attracted to a 16 or 17 year old is a pedophile, probably because he has some deep-seated guilt about attraction to people of that age himself.

    Dave

  • SHARK

    Nugget,

    I couldn’t have been more clear in my opposition to Nalle’s basic points. [see #88, #111 et a;]

    And I never accused or implied that Nalle was homophobic.

    Nalle: ‘[Shark] who thinks someone who’s attracted to a 16 or 17 year old is a pedophile, probably because he has some deep-seated guilt about attraction to people of that age himself”

    re: Nalle’s last statement —

    FUCK YOU. It’s amazing how low you’ll go when egged on by some young motard sychophant with a vendetta.

    And Mr. Blogcritics Editor, when you start deleting “personal insults” — you might wanna reconsider that last one that accuses me of being a sexual predator.

    You fucking Asswipe.

  • Ruvy in Jerusalem

    It’s always a pleasure to read measured and intelligent philosophical discourse and discussions between gentlemen and wise men of letters. It almost makes me wish I could actually read…

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Shark, I didn’t accuse you of being a sexual predator because I don’t think an attraction to late teens is perverse. By legal standards and historical standards 16 year olds and older are considered sexually mature. The insult is entirely in your head, even if I chose to manipulate your prejudices a bit.

    Dave

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com/ handyguy

    This discussion is now generating much heat, but no light. It’s demeaning to read adults throwing childish, meaningless insults at each other. Breathe, boys.

  • http://www.futonreport.net/ Matthew T. Sussman

    It’s okay Dave. Shark’s just showing us his immaturity.

  • Nancy

    Shark, when you’re good, you’re very, very good; but when you descend to this kind of puerile ranting, you’re beneath horrid. C’mon, you can do better than this; I’ve read your ripostes where you come back with wit & flair. This is not one of them.

  • http://www.theworkingchair.com/boxclocke Boxclocke

    I agree with you in general theory here, Dave. Absolutely gay republicans (and democrats too, for that matter) need to grow a pair, and certainly they should be honest and frank with both voters and themselves… But the Foley thing is a bit less cut and dry.

    Yes, the age of consent in DC is 16, and yes, the communications were consensual, but people don’t care about particulars. This looks an awful hell of a lot like pedophilia, and any attempt to equate Foley’s behavior with honesty about sexual orientation is only going to reinforce the negative image of gay men as creepy deviants preying on children.

    In fact, many of Foley’s defenders — his lawyers, and, whatever, Newt Gingrich — are playing up the gay angle for exactly that reason. They want to make sure this is a “gay” thing so that people who come down against Foley look like gay bashers.

    This fiasco is a victory for those who wish to expose the hypocrisy of the Republican congress, and is certainly a boon for Democratic candidates hoping to destroy the myth of Republican “values.” But is this a victory for the image of the gay American? Far from it.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    True enough, box. Even putting aside the appearance of pedophilia, Foley’s actions don’t reflect well on gay men in positions of power, and it’s made worse by the fact that there’s a history of similar abuses from other powerful closeted homosexuals from J. Edgar Hoover to Karl Rove.

    What I tried to point out in the article is that the fundamental problem of these guys feeling that they have to be in the closet is what needs to be addressed before they end up mired in scandal like Barney Frank or McGreevey or Foley. It’s irreponsible of them as politicians to live the kind of life that they do.

    Dave

  • Baronius

    Shark – If no one else will say this, I will. I admire your restraint. The only possible reason for not punching Dave in the mouth is that he doesn’t even realize that accusing someone of being interested in young boys is an insult.

  • JustOneMan

    “accusing someone of being interested in young boys is an insult”

    Not according to the left wing liberals in the US….

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com Silas Kain

    If I were batting for your team I’d rather have you as a co-equal partner, Silas. Sex slavery is best left to the Saudis – they do it best.

    He he. I have it all worked out in my mind, Dave. You dress up like Anton complete with horns. Damn. Now I have to take a cold shower.

  • JustOneMan

    ABC Busted in lie!!!

    A posting of an unredacted instant message sessions between Rep. Mark Foley and a former congressional page has apparently exposed the identity of the now 21 year-old accuser…

    ABC RELEASED TRANSCRIPT OF CHAT BETWEEN FOLEY AND A MAN WHO WAS 18 AT THE TIME OF THE INSTANT MESSAGE EXCHANGE…. NETWORK GAVE IMPRESSION MESSAGE WAS TO ‘UNDER AGE’ TEEN… DEVELOPING…

  • nugget

    you mean sycophant? … not in the business of bootlicking.

    p.s. I have no vendetta, I just think your ugly conceit took center stage in this thread. Either way, I thought your novel internet Andy Kaufman routine was supposed to be funny, not sad.

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Speaker Dennis Hastert’s political support showed signs of cracking on Wednesday as Republicans fled an election-year scandal spawned by steamy computer messages from disgraced Rep. Mark Foley to teenage male pages.

    At the same time, a congressional aide said in an Associated Press interview he first warned Hastert’s aides more than three years ago that Foley’s behavior toward pages was worrisome. That was long before GOP leaders acknowledged hearing of it.

    The aide, Kirk Fordham, said he had “more than one conversation with senior staff at the highest level of the House of Representatives asking them to intervene” at the time.

    The claim drew a swift, unequivocal denial from Hastert’s chief of staff. “What Kirk Fordham said did not happen,” Scott Palmer said through a spokesman.

    Half a continent away, Rep. Roy Blunt of Missouri, third-ranking leader, pointedly told reporters he would have handled the matter differently than Hastert, had he known of it.

    “I think I could have given some good advice here, which is, You have to be curious, you have to ask all the questions you can think of,” said Blunt, who was acting majority leader at the time Hastert was told of overly friendly e-mails from Foley to one page. “You absolutely can’t decide not to look into activities because one individual’s parents don’t want you to.”

    Rep. Ron Lewis of Kentucky, in a tougher-than-expected re-election race, abruptly canceled an invitation for Hastert to join him at a fundraiser next week.

    “I’m taking the speaker’s words at face value,” Lewis told the AP. “I have no reason to doubt him. But until this is cleared up, I want to know the facts. If anyone in our leadership has done anything wrong, then I will be the first in line to condemn it.”

    Ron Bonjean, Hastert’s spokesman, said the entire issue had been referred to the House ethics committee. “We fully expect that the bipartisan panel will do what it needs to do to investigate this mater and protect the integrity of the House,” he added.

    House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi went one step further, issuing a statement saying that Hastert and the rest of the GOP leadership should be “immediately questioned under oath….”

    “The children, their parents, the public, and our colleagues deserve answers and those who covered up Mark Foley’s behavior must be held accountable,” she said.

    Foley, 52, a Florida Republican, resigned last Friday after he was confronted with sexually explicit electronic messages he had sent teenage male pages. He has since entered an alcohol rehabilitation facility at an undisclosed location. Through his lawyer, he has said he is gay but denied having had any sexual contact with minors.

    His abrupt departure left behind a sex scandal that has shaken Republican confidence – and poll numbers – little more than a month before elections at which their control of the House will be tested.

    It also plunged Hastert and others into an intensive effort to grapple with conflicting claims about what senior lawmakers knew, when they learned and what they did about it.

    State and federal investigators swung into action.

    The Justice Department ordered House officials to “preserve all records” related to Foley’s electronic correspondence with teenagers, and one law enforcement official said FBI agents have begun interviewing participants in the House page program. It was not clear whether those questioned were current or former pages, or both.

    The request for record preservation is often followed by search warrants and subpoenas, and signal that investigators are moving closer to a criminal investigation.

    The request was aimed at averting a conflict with the House similar to a standoff in May when FBI agents raided Louisiana Rep. William Jefferson’s office seeking information in a bribery investigation.

    Separately, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement has begun a preliminary inquiry.

    Hastert was at home in Illinois during the day as he struggled with the first major cracks in his political support from fellow Republicans.

    His office heatedly denied any suggestion that he intended to resign as speaker.

    “When Republicans keep the majority this November, the speaker will run again and serve his full term should his colleagues choose to elect him,” Bonjean said.

    But the comments by Fordham, who resigned during the day, coupled with the remarks by Blunt and Lewis’ action, suggested Hastert’s plans might face a challenge. The speaker is elected by the full House, but he essentially serves at the please of the members of the rank and file of the majority party.

    In this case, that’s the Republicans, who already had been struggling to retain their majority in adverse political circumstances and now must contend with the questions about Hastert’s actions.

    Even a Republican from Hastert’s home state of Illinois expressed reservations about asking the speaker for campaign help.

    “We still take the position that we want all the facts,” said Ryan McLaughlin, a sopkesman for state Sen. Peter Roskam, who is running for an open seat now in Republican hands.

    Associated Press writers Andrew Taylor, Lara Jakes Jordan and Laurie Kellman in Washington; Marus Kabel in Springfield, Mo., and Michelle Smith in Providence, R.I., contributed to this report.

    Copyright 2006 Associated Press

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Can we please not post the entire text of AP articles to these threads. Put it in a link and tell us why we should read it. It takes up a lot of space AND it’s a violation of copyright.

    Dave

  • Clavos

    Can we please not post the entire text of AP articles to these threads.

    Or anyone else’s…

    Thank you, Dave!

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Yes dear…

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    You steppin’ in my territory, Jet?

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Sorrrrrrrrrrreeeeeeee……. I didn’t notice the scent marks…

  • Bliffle

    Nalle: “There’s no pedophilia here. 16 year olds are sexually mature both legally and physiologically.”

    In Foleys district? What do his constituents say? Has DC become a whorehouse for pedophiles?

  • SHARK

    Funny.

    Nalle says that I oppose his silly thesis because of my “deep-seated guilt about attraction to” 16 YEAR OLD BOYS.

    — And not a peep from you people. [except for, and thanks to, Baronius]

    I respond as any honorable *Texan would respond to such an unfair level of discourse — and I’m accused of being an immature ranter/horrible, etc.

    Typical media bias.

    *just down the road from Austin : )

    heh.

  • Bliffle

    Nalle: “Even putting aside the appearance of pedophilia, Foley’s actions don’t reflect well on gay men in positions of power,…”

    It’s not about gayness, it’s about pedophilia and abuse of power. This scandal would be barely a ripple if the guy Foley wrote to were a 30 year old. And YOU know it! You are deliberatley warping a pedophilia issue into a gay issue. Pretty cynical. Rove inspired, I suppose.

    In your desperate attempt to excuse this republican congressman you even sink so low as the old pedophiles constant excuse “the little tease seduced me!” Even though the “tease”, in some pedophiles cases, are 6 years old. Even younger.

    And having already sunk low you apparently have no hesitation in quoting your own teenager.

    Your constant pursuit of excuses for monsters has turned you into a monster yourself.

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    It may stun all of you that I’ve been relatively quiet here, and there’s a good reason. That big red word at the top of the article says OPINION.

    Whether he’s being serious or saterical… or hysterical for the matter is immaterial. The man is entitled to his opinion…

    …but of course that’s only my opinion!

    Jet

  • Nancy

    Well, Hastert seems to be down the tubes, not only because he was caught in a blatant lie about what he knew when – by Reynold’s aide, of all people (& Hastert is still trying to deny it), but more tellingly, because he was supposed to be at a fundraiser for a fellow GOP congressmaggot last night – and was disinvited. When your fellow rats don’t want you helping them raise money, you know you’re a goner.

    This whole situation tickles me. Not only is it vastly entertaining in and of itself, but it has come about solely because of Republican hubris, arrogance, and abuse of power. Had the GOP leadership not sought to hide the situation so’s not to endanger the 2004 elections, and let the Dem member of the so-called Ethics Committee in on it (as in fact they are legally supposed to do), they would have been able to claim this was a matter under bipartisan investigation, and the onus of the whole pile would not then be solely on the Republicans in congress. But they didn’t. In their mad greed to corner power & shut out the Dems at any cost, they ignored the rules concerning involvement of all members of the Ethics Committee & kept it strictly in house. And now they’re paying for it, in spades I hope. Hastert is toast: Boehner, his ever-loyal associate, and Reynolds, also a staunch ally, have both cut & run as fast as they can, saying they told Hastert – who is suddenly their “supervisor” – and left it in his hands to take care of. God save us all from such “loyal” allies as these. Hopefully, they’ll go down with Hastert as they deserve. What a bunch of self-serving lowlifes. Truly there is no honor – or loyalty – among thieves, pederasts, and congressmen.

    Can’t wait to see what today’s closed-door GOP session is gonna bring. Stay tuned for the next exciting episode of All In The GOP Family….

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Bliffle, your comment in #157 bears virtually no relationship to anything I’ve posted here. It’s not a pedophilia issue, it’s an abuse of power issue. And it’s an abuse of power issue primarily because Foley is in the closet, not because he is gay. If he were openly gay then the problem would be much less.

    He’s not a standard pedophile who goes after kids because he likes them young, he’s an opportunistic sexual predator who goes after people because they are vulnerable and controllable. If he sexually harassed a male or female employee who was 30 years old he’d be just as guilty.

    Where you and shark get the idea that I’m tryng to equate homosexuality with pedophilia is beyond me. What I’m trying to do is equate closeted homosexuality with a whole host of bad behavior associated with trying to live a lie.

    Dave

  • Nancy

    Dave, being gay & living the gay life secretly while condemning it in public & pretending you’re straight is called hypocrisy. That, at least, is pretty straight.

  • M’Balz iz Hairi

    I must be missing something. When did political office become a sacred throne for morality? I actually pity the sad sack of shit. Foley is pathetic, yes. Y’all are definitely going overboard with this stuff and when the femi-nazis or the flag-burning liberals try preaching from the pulpit, you are simply reinforcing the stereotypes you have tried for years to shake. You think Caesar is going to come along and “build a bridge to the 21st century…and actually vote for the 87 billion dollars…” It’s people like you that make people like me go to the polls and vote.

  • M’Balz iz Hairi

    Happy New Year Ruvy!

  • Clavos

    Jet (#158)

    Whether he’s being serious or saterical… or hysterical for the matter is immaterial. The man is entitled to his opinion…

    Well, of course he is; as is everyone else entitled to have an opinion; even about his opinion–‘Whether he’s being serious or saterical… or hysterical.’

    Those aren’t ‘immaterial.’

    In my opinion.

  • http://adreamersholiday.blogspot.com Lee Richards

    Dave, What bothers me about your position throughout this thread is that you imply over and over that because the page was 16 and legally at the age of consent that what Foley did was not all THAT bad. He was just a poor, mixed-up fellow that wasn’t preying on, say a 15 year-old. If you don’t know–or remember– how immature and vulnerable 16 year-olds are, especially in sexual behaviors, then your arguments are obviously based on an agenda, rather than sound reasoning. Were he an openly gay teacher in your child’s school who behaved the same way as he did with the page, would you still say, “the problem would be much less”(#160)?

  • Nancy

    M’Balz – who are you talking to (#162)? Political office became a sacred throne, as you put it, when the GOP made it their platform & crowned themselves the arbiters of morality, the upholders of Family Values, & the monopolizers of Truth, Justice, & the American Way. Add to this an unsavory stew of arrogance, greed, and lust for power both individually & as a party, and you can understand, therefore, that when they’re caught violating same, as has happened all to frequently lately, they get nailed with no pity or consideration. If you’re gonna dub yourself the Sons of God & morally superior to everyone else, you’d damn well better live up to the standards expected & advertised.

  • Bliffle

    Dave: “He’s not a standard pedophile who goes after kids because he likes them young, he’s an opportunistic sexual predator who goes after people because they are vulnerable and controllable.”

    It appears that you’ve forfeited the point you originally were trying to make: that Foleys sins proceeded from homosexuality not pederasty. Indeed, pedophiles choose children because of their vulnerability, not an aesthetic choice. In this pedophiles are like rapists: it is the power, not the sex, that turns them on.

    If Foley were heterosexual instead of homosexual, would you blame his predation of young female pages on his heterosexuality?

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Dave, What bothers me about your position throughout this thread is that you imply over and over that because the page was 16 and legally at the age of consent that what Foley did was not all THAT bad. He was just a poor, mixed-up fellow that wasn’t preying on, say a 15 year-old.

    I don’t believe I ever said he was a ‘poor, mixed-up fellow’. I believe the term I used was ‘opportunistic predator’, which is hardly the same thing.

    If you don’t know–or remember– how immature and vulnerable 16 year-olds are, especially in sexual behaviors,

    Not only do I remember, I have a kid around that age, so I have first-hand and parental experience. I think your memories may be a bit tainted by nostalgia. The teens I’m in contact with today are a LOT more sexually mature and aware than they were 30 years ago.

    then your arguments are obviously based on an agenda, rather than sound reasoning.

    What agenda could I possibly have?

    Were he an openly gay teacher in your child’s school who behaved the same way as he did with the page, would you still say, “the problem would be much less”(#160)?

    First off, I contend that the openly gay teacher would be enormously less likely to pursue a student. And yes, the problem would be less, because it would be the SAME as if the teacher were pursuing a student of the opposite sex and could be dealt with the same way. It would still be inappropriate and grounds for disciplining the teacher, but the stygmatization issue would at least be minimized.

    Dave

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    An openly gay teacher would not only be watched like a hawk by those both supportive and lividly against, the teacher would be have to be very trustworthy in his/her integrety considering the consequence of their honesty.

    On top of that if several kids complained to the principal or the schoolboard you can bet they’d do a hell of a lot more than Hastert did-or is doing.

    A child is just as safe with a gay teacher as a straight teacher, probably more so, since an openly gay teacher would have to hold to a higher standard than a straight teacher ever would.

    Look at all the straight female teachers having affairs/marrying their teenaged students lately…

    …but of course that’s only my opinion!

    Jet

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    It appears that you’ve forfeited the point you originally were trying to make: that Foleys sins proceeded from homosexuality not pederasty.

    Bliffle, that was never my point. My point was that his crime was exaccerbated by his CLOSETED status, not the homosexuality itself.

    If Foley were heterosexual instead of homosexual, would you blame his predation of young female pages on his heterosexuality?

    No, but I didn’t blame his predation on his homosexuality in the first place.

    Dave

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com/ handyguy

    Good biographical piece on Foley in today’s NY Times looks at just how closeted he is – or is not.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    I’ll take a look at the piece. I tried to convey in my article that his closeted status was kind of half-assed. Clearly the guy was full of ambivalence and confusion.

    Dave

  • RogerMDillon

    Shark, considering Nalle has shown from the get-go he doesn’t know what’s he’s talking about on this issue, there seemed to be no point commenting any further.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com/ handyguy

    The Times article doesn’t contradict your original piece, but because it takes a biographical approach, it covers some interesting stuff ignored in the general media overkill of the last week.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Roger, unless I’m mistaken the two gay people commenting on this thread actually more or less agree with me and only a few ranting idiots who didn’t understand the article (bliffle) or had preconceptions and prejudices (shark) disagree with the basic premise that Foley being closeted contributed to the problem.

    Let’s hear your argument for why it’s a good idea for gay lawmakers to stay in the closet.

    Dave

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Handy, I thought the times article made Foley seem a bit more sympathetic, though awfully superficial. It did make him seem like he had some value as a lawmaker despite his problems.

    Dave

  • Clavos

    Dave 176,

    From local newspaper reports (Miami Herald & South Florida Sun-Sentinel), Foley was quite well liked by his constituents prior to the revelation of the scandal.

    Haven’t seen any post-scandal poll data.

  • Baronius

    Dave, are you saying that the only people who disagree with you are Bliffle and Shark, or the only *gay* people who disagree with you are Bliffle and Shark? If the first case, what about the rest of us? If the second case, don’t straight’s opinions count on this matter?

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    I just identified Bliffle and shark as specific people who disagree with me. As far as I know they’re straight. Doesn’t mean there aren’t others. But I bet you disagree with me for different reasons than they do.

    Dave

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Dave says…Roger, unless I’m mistaken the two gay people commenting on this thread actually more or less agree with me and only a few ranting idiots who didn’t understand the article

    Indeed.

    Dave and I don’t often agree politically, but in this case I do agree with him. This isn’t a matter of HOMO sexuality or politics-it’s a matter of being honest with yourself and the people you serve.

    Why do you think Barney Frank’s been elected so many times?

    Jet

    (Now remember Dave the deal we made is that I get to disagree with your next article… okay?)

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Exactly, Jet. That’s why I used Frank as my comparison in the article rather than one of the other sex scandalizers in Congress. He’s the best positive example of how Congressmen ought to handle their sexuality.

    Dave

  • Clavos

    Dave,

    An off-topic question:

    Why the limit on links in a comment?

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Not my call, but I suspect the limit on links in comments is because there are certain spambots which are identified by the large number of links they put in their posts, so keeping it low weeds them out.

    Dave

  • Arch Conservative

    Jet you said:

    Why do you think Barney Frank’s been elected so many times?

    It’s because the people of Massachusetts don’t really care what you do as long as you’re a very liberal democrat.

    Ted Kennedy killed a woman with his car and this doesn’t seem to bother the voters of Massachusetts.

    Frank is a liberal incumbent that’s why he keeps getting re-elected. in fact I’d venture to say that if Frank were caught in a sex scandal with a 16 year old congressional page it would not hurt his chances of getting re-elected one bit in Massachusetts.

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com/ Michael J. West

    There’s a question here that still needs a definitive answer: is Foley a hebephile or not?

    If he is, then the question of his homosexuality, closeted or not, is frankly not that relevant.

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com/ Michael J. West

    Perhaps I should clarify that last comment so I don’t get my head bitten off.

    As Dave has repeated, this is not a pedophilia issue. Pedophilia is an attraction to prepubescent children. It MIGHT be hebephilia, as RJ suggested–hebephilia being an attraction to pubescent children. And although 16 is the age of consent in DC, there is–as I understand it–a good deal of ambiguity with that age group, from the psychological standpoint. And with Foley’s attraction to them, especially considering that his track record thus far seems to be EXCLUSIVELY 16-year-olds.

    Dave, your thesis makes a lot of sense to me: that Foley was simply a closeted gay man who preyed on 16-year-olds because they were a vulnerable, intimidatable group over whom he had control. I know that pubescent males, for example, commonly act out sexual curiosity on younger kids for that very reason.

    But I’m not as sure as you are that that’s why Foley did what he did. It’s a very strong possibility but it’s not so far-fetched that he’s just a hebephile. In which case, as I said, it doesn’t make much difference whether he was gay or not.

  • Bliffle

    Nalle: Every time you mention pedophilia you minimize it (“..appearance of pedophilia..”) and every time you mention gayness you emphasize it. You are clearly attempting to shift the “appearance” of Foley from pedophile to gay.

    “It’s not a pedophilia issue, it’s an abuse of power issue. And it’s an abuse of power issue primarily because Foley is in the closet, not because he is gay. If he were openly gay then the problem would be much less.”

    Would “the problem” be much less if he were a hetero dealing with a female page?

    If Foley were openly pedophiliac, not a closet ped, would that be better?

  • Bliffle

    Nalle: “…only a few ranting idiots who didn’t understand the article (bliffle) or had preconceptions and prejudices (shark) disagree with the basic premise that Foley being closeted contributed to the problem.”

    I reckon this slander entitles me to a free shot at Dave Nalle. First of all, I understand your article perfectly: Foleys crime is that he is a closeted gay, NOT that he imposes on very young pages in the manner of a pedophile. That’s nice: it excuses him from the gallows and only requires a few hours of Community Service, perhaps picking up gum wrappers along the highway for a day or two.

    IMO Nalles constant attempts at exculpating republican miscreants is not because he is a Libertarian or Conservative but because he is simply an anti-democrat. He’s not even an independent, which we called “crypto-conservative” when I was active in Republican causes. Cryptos grumble about reps as well as dems, but can be depended on to vote rep if you can get them to the polls. But they don’t defend rep crooks.

    Now Dave has descended to the lowest depths of slander: blaming the victim. Even quoting his daughter to advance the traditional pedophile alibi: “the little tease tempted me: I couldn’t resist!” Dave is not an idiot. On the contrary, he is intelligent and experienced. But he is a slime. By defending the indefensible he has become a monster. No matter how clever his words, no matter how appealing his flimsy syllogisms, he is unscrupulous. For that, I don’t think he should be hanged, but merely shunned for his sophistry.

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    ArchBoingBat-You pontificating that Ted Kennedy killed a woman when he wasn’t tried, charged or convicted is about as stupid and false as my saying George Bush joined the National Guard to avoid going to Vietnam and lied about actually serving.

    Wait a minute, maybe I better use a different example.

    You are one of the most self-righteous hypocrits this site has ever seen. Just because you say it’s so doesn’t make it so your majesty.

    I bet you jack off every night looking at yourself in the mirror don’t you?

    …but of course that’s only my opinion!

    Jet

  • Clavos

    ArchBoingBat-You pontificating that Ted Kennedy killed a woman when he wasn’t tried, charged or convicted

    Technically you’re right, Jet.

    But Mary Jo Kopechne did die in his car that night. And she died because he drove the car off the bridge and into the water; she then drowned while he swam ashore.

    Those are facts, which are not disputed by anyone.

    And Kennedy did plead guilty to leaving the scene of an accident, for which his driver’s license was suspended for a year.

  • steve

    why do you think ted hasnt run for prez? simply because of an incident in which a young girl was murdered due to his lack of judgement. id say that is a TAD bit worse than “draft-dodging” which our former president clinton is also guilty of…its funny that for some reason…liberals dont identify with this shocking information.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Bliffle, don’t take it personally, but I think that on this issue you’re at least a little bit irrational. Your perspective is peculiar and you seem to have a personal axe to grind which is causing you to read all sorts of stuff into what I’ve written that isn’t there.

    Nalle: Every time you mention pedophilia you minimize it (“..appearance of pedophilia..”) and every time you mention gayness you emphasize it.

    Let’s see an example of the latter. I agree I minimized the pedophilia aspect, because it IS NOT pedophilia. Not only was there no sex, but the kids were over the age of consent at the time. As a legal matter it’s just not pedophilia. I’m not so much minimizing it as countering the exaggeration others are applying to it. And yes, what’s more, I do not believe that sex with 16 year olds is pedophilia. It may be creepy and repugnant by our current standards, but biologically and historically it’s not outside the norm.

    You are clearly attempting to shift the “appearance” of Foley from pedophile to gay.

    No, I’m not. I haven’t once said anything that suggested that gays are inherently prone to pedophilia. My argument is that it is the being in the closet which is the problem, not being gay. That should be overwhelmingly clear by now. Others seem to have gotten it, why don’t you? I challenge to you find ONE statement from me during my time on BC in any article or comment which can reasonably be categorized as homophobic. To the contrary, I have written multiple articles in support of gay rights.

    Would “the problem” be much less if he were a hetero dealing with a female page?

    I think I answered that already, but if Foley were out of the closet then the situation would be better because it would be the same as if he were a hetero dealing with a female page. There’d have been no issue of longterm concealment of sexuality.

    If Foley were openly pedophiliac, not a closet ped, would that be better?

    If we were dealing with pedophelia here then it certainly would have been better because then Foley never would have been elected to office and would probably be in jail.

    I reckon this slander entitles me to a free shot at Dave Nalle.

    It’s only a slander if it’s not true, and your reaction to my post and comments has been entirely idiotic.

    First of all, I understand your article perfectly: Foleys crime is that he is a closeted gay, NOT that he imposes on very young pages in the manner of a pedophile. That’s nice: it excuses him from the gallows and only requires a few hours of Community Service, perhaps picking up gum wrappers along the highway for a day or two.

    Wrong again. It’s not a crime to be closeted, it’s just a very bad idea. Nothing that Foley has done is ever going to get him jail time no matter how you look at it. The worst he might face is a civil suit for damages over sexual harassment.

    I’m not defending Foley, because there’s nothing to defend. I’m condemning him on entirely different and in many ways more serious grounds, for abuse of power and pathological dishonesty which should disqualify him from public service.

    IMO Nalles constant attempts at exculpating republican miscreants

    Again, I’m not defending Foley, I’m criticising him on different and IMO more important issues.

    is not because he is a Libertarian or Conservative but because he is simply an anti-democrat. He’s not even an independent, which we called “crypto-conservative” when I was active in Republican causes. Cryptos grumble about reps as well as dems, but can be depended on to vote rep if you can get them to the polls. But they don’t defend rep crooks.

    Again, you’ve misread me. I’m a Libertarian more than anything else, and as a Libertarian I don’t find the free and consensual association of two individuals of legal age through the internet all that troubling, regardless of their relative ages.

    Now Dave has descended to the lowest depths of slander: blaming the victim. Even quoting his daughter to advance the traditional pedophile alibi: “the little tease tempted me: I couldn’t resist!”

    I quoted her take on the situation as peculiar. I pointedly did not say I agreed with it. However, she did have a point. What the hell is the former page doing chatting about sex with Foley if he’s bothered by it. AIM has a mute button and teens know how to use it.

    Dave is not an idiot. On the contrary, he is intelligent and experienced. But he is a slime. By defending the indefensible he has become a monster. No matter how clever his words, no matter how appealing his flimsy syllogisms, he is unscrupulous. For that, I don’t think he should be hanged, but merely shunned for his sophistry.

    I’m still waiting to hear exactly what the ‘indefensible’ thing I defended is.

    Dave

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    she died in his car she was NOT murdered in his car

  • Clavos

    Arch didn’t say “murdered;” he said “killed.” That’s true, and not even disputed by Kennedy.

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    You know this is the typical stupid republican tactic, change the subject when you can’t argue with it. Ted Kennedy has absofuckinglootly nothing to do with this conversation unless he’s in the closet, which I sincerely doubt.

    Mr. Nalle has made a valid point with this string and rather than admit it, you try to side track the conversation.

    just like what Hastert did today, turning his little press conferrence into a political stomp speech bragging about all the Congress did…. Last Friday.

  • Clavos

    Who’s changing the subject, Jet?

    I merely pointed out that your comment #189 to Arch was not correct.

    I didn’t change any subject.

    Oh, and I’m not a Republican.

    And you of all people should know that I could care less what any person’s sexual orientation is.

    Come to think of it, I don’t like pedophiles, necrophiles or coprophiles, however.

  • MCH

    “As Dave has repeated, this is not a pedophilia issue. Pedophilia is an attraction to prepubescent children. It MIGHT be hebephilia, as RJ suggested–hebephilia being an attraction to pubescent children.”
    – Michael J. West

    Umm, “Scumbag” is more appropriate, actually.

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Tell me something MCH do you have a chorus of Beavus and Buttheads giggling in your head as you type that shit?

    Heh heh heh heh he said scumbag.

    Shirley you can come come up with SOMETHING more intelligent than that? … or am I misjudging you?

  • MCH

    Nope, that’s about as smart as I get, Jet. I don’t believe in using a bunch of fancy words or pyschologies for an elected official (whose going to end up with a fortune just on his pension alone that we give him) who trolls for boys young enough to be his grandsons.

    Scumbag is all I can come up with. Sorry to disappoint you.

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    I thought so.

    So, it’s okay for a straight guy to troll for girls young enough to be their granddaughters as long as their of legal age, especially when they’re answering back his text messages and e-mails, but not a gay guy.

    Typical hetrosexual double standard…

    …but of course that’s only my opinion!

    Jet

  • MCH

    When did I say that?

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    who trolls for boys young enough to be his grandsons… they’re of legal age at the time.

    IT may not have been your idea of “moral” but it was legal

  • http://counter-point.blogspot.com Scott

    “Ted Kennedy killed a woman with his car and this doesn’t seem to bother the voters of Massachusetts”

    “Arch didn’t say “murdered;” he said “killed.” That’s true, and not even disputed by Kennedy”

    The key word here is “with.” He implies Kennedy murdered (or killed) a woman “with” his car. I think the correct phrase would be “there was a woman who died in Ted Kennedy’s car.” Ted didn’t kill her “with” his car. Now, Laura Bush, she did kill someone “with” her car.

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com/ Michael J. West

    Goddamnit, I made a compelling point in #186–a damn compelling point–and then watched as it got hijacked by Bliffle, MCH, and Arch Conservative: people who apparently don’t understand the concept of nuance. What kind of fair is that?

  • Nancy

    That’s right: if we’re going to dredge up good ol’ Ted, we can also bring up & harp on Laura Bush’s manslaughter of her boyfriend. They’re both equally non-sequitur to this conversation & thread.

    Having finished that, it’s a pity Foley felt he had to stay in the closet. I have no doubt he would have been happier & his situation a lot healthier & more productive if he had been Out. I suspect this is more a product of being a Republican than anything else. The GOP is notoriously hostile to gays, and all I can think is it must be hell to have to belong to a party that thinks you’re scum. Were he Out, he could probably have led as useful & productive a professional life as Frank. Perhaps he should have switched to Independent or even become a conservative Dem…there are a few, after all.

    About the business of chasing interns I’m not so sure. I doubt that has anything to do with his gayness; I suspect that is a whole ‘nother problem in his sexual roster, and one he made little or no effort to control or repress, and for that he does indeed deserve to hang, as it were. You just DON’T go after people subordinate to you, or under 21 – even if they are technically ‘of the age of consent’. It was begging for trouble, and I’m sure as a normally intelligent person he was well aware of it.

    The larger & more important sin here is not Foley’s, but Hastert’s: failure to do anything about it, and then trying to cover up/spin/lie about it. He and the other GOP leaders were obviously far more concerned about retaining power than they were about the public good & the safety of the interns, and for THAT they deserve richly to go down. Public service has no place for men who value personal aggrandizement & power over the welfare of people in their care.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    But I’m not as sure as you are that that’s why Foley did what he did. It’s a very strong possibility but it’s not so far-fetched that he’s just a hebephile. In which case, as I said, it doesn’t make much difference whether he was gay or not.

    I’m certainly not going to say that my theory derives from revealed truth. It’s believable, but there could be other things in play here. We don’t really know how twisted Foley is. He may be a true pedophile who went after pages as a relatively safe alternative to what he really wanted. There are a lot of possibilities.

    But i think the fact that he’s a closeted gay does make a difference, because being closeted he was more inclined to conceal his activities and lie to the party leadership and the public. Maybe it’s a commentary on the times, but in the 70s and 80s congressmen had relatively open gay and straight affairs with pages and pretty much got away with it because it was done more or less in the open. It’s the secretiveness from Foley and the GOP leadership which makes this situation more explosive.

    Dave

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com/ Michael J. West

    But i think the fact that he’s a closeted gay does make a difference, because being closeted he was more inclined to conceal his activities and lie to the party leadership and the public.

    It’s possible that his being a closeted gay man was the motivator for his concealment…but how about his co-chairmanship of the Congressional Missing and Exploited Children’s Caucus? Don’t you think that also gave him pretty good reason to hide it?

    Maybe it’s a commentary on the times, but in the 70s and 80s congressmen had relatively open gay and straight affairs with pages and pretty much got away with it because it was done more or less in the open.

    I think an important difference here is that in the past, those congressmen weren’t serial pursuers of 16-year-old pages. Outwardly, it would seem that Foley was. Was it because he could manipulate them? Or because he was specifically attracted to them? I don’t know.

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Michael J. West-I feel for you buddy-I feel for you

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com/ Michael J. West

    Jet, you always were one of my favorite commenters.

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    I just get pissed when if they can’t argue a valid point they try to distract the subject.

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Dave Nalle is absolutely right, having been a closeted gay, I can tell you that you’re constantly lying and denying your true self. Constantly on your guard that someone might find out.

    One lie leads to another and another. I got so sick of it and the accompanying paranoia that I finally just stopped.

    I have no pity for closeted gays or ones who claim to be “bi” hoping that that will give them some sort of social acceptability. Anyone capable of keeping up appearances like that is capable of lying about anything…

    But then again he was a republican.

    I’m getting so weary of this string, because I like a good INTELLIGENT opponent during an argument and unfortunately Nalle and I seem to be on the same side.

    drat

    I’ll tell you something else too people. I don’t post remarks or pontificate loudly on someone’s string trying to tout my OPINIONS as fact.
    I also don’t claim to be the know all be all font of all knowledge like some assholes who think they can post anything and expect people to accept that it carved in stone.

    I have the balls to admit when I’m wrong, which is why I am proud to state loudly and proudly that

    …but of course that’s only my opinion!

    Jet

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com/ Michael J. West

    I like a good INTELLIGENT opponent during an argument

    Well, Jet, I’m not exactly an opponent, per se, but I am suggesting an alternative explanation. Does that count?

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Please Michael, not in front of the Klingons!

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus
  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Happy like hell. That just means they’ll spend the money and do nothing meaningful with it. I’d rather they spent the money and built the stupid wall than waste our time with bullshit posing. This reminds me a lot of the levee building in New Orleans where a hell of a lot of money gets appropriated to build the same old inadequate system.

    Dave

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    No no… I meant that I hadn’t copied the whole article

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com/ Michael J. West

    Sheesh. This thread is dead. I’m going to listen to Lassiter.

  • RogerMDillon

    “Let’s hear your argument for why it’s a good idea for gay lawmakers to stay in the closet.”

    While we are in agreement that in an ideal world it would be great for gay lawmakers to come out of the closet, you have it backwards on to reach that goal.

    Rather than tell gays to come out, why not ask the people who cause gays to stay in the closet to open their hearts and accept them? It’s easy for you to put the onus on gay people because you have no idea or understanding of what you are asking of them. Ask Matthew Sheppard how easy it is to come out in a red state.

    Is it really just a coincidence that gay Republicans are in the closet or could it be that it was what they needed to do to be accepted into the party? I’m not saying all Republicans have an issue with gay people, but there’s obviously enough.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Party leaders certainly have no problem with openly gay legislators. The voters may be more of a mixed bag. But I know of no policy or platform plank which suggests that gay republicans should stay in the closet. That’s a matter of personal choice, and I think they’re making the wrong one.

    And Shepard wasn’t killed because he came out. Shepard was killed – according to the testimony in the trial and later comments by an eyewitness – basically because the two guys wanted to rob him. The ridiculous and offensive gay rage defense was basically dreamed up for the trial.

    Dave

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus
  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com/ Michael J. West

    The killers’ girlfriends also testified at the trial that they had been specifically planning to rob a gay man.

    Of course, if it wasn’t about homosexuality before, Fred Phelps and his wacko asshole followers certainly made it about homosexuality post-facto.

  • zingzing

    oh, dave… how blind are you? if they wanted to rob him, they would rob him, not tie him to a fucking fence and beat him to death! fucking hell. open your fucking eyes.

  • http://www.ladydragonfyre.com/index_files/LWS Lady Dragonfyre

    Dave:

    Here’s a third gay perspective . . . well, a bi one.

    He could just as easily meet someone via IM who is legal, and NOT under his authority.

    Whatever pressures he felt as a closeted Republican male he had a CHOICE whether or not to act on whatever inclinations he had running through his head.

    Perhaps if Foley was thinking with his head instead of his penis, he would’ve made the right choice.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    He could just as easily meet someone via IM who is legal, and NOT under his authority.

    Exactly, LD. Which is exactly why being in the closet and needing that additional protection is such a bad idea.

    Dave

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Matthew was singled out because he was gay.

    The killers’ girlfriends also testified at the trial that they had been specifically planning to rob a gay man.

    Their testimony went into more detail than that after the fact, and what they said illustrates how the Shepard case relates to the Foley business.

    Supposedly they went after him not because of his gayness, but because they thought that they could get away with it more easily because he was gay. So it wasn’t so much to ‘punish’ him for being gay as you’d expect in a pure hate crime, but because being gay made him more vulnerable.

    I can’t really speak to the psychology of the whole sick mess. There probably was an element of fag bashing as well. But what the incident points out is the abuse of power which the stygma attached to homosexuality encourages.

    They figured that no one would care what happened to Shepard because he was gay or that he wouldn’t fight back because he was gay. In the same way, Foley figured the pages would be ashamed to inform on him. It’s part of the same syndrome.

    Because they are afraid of social stygmatization gays remain silent and they stay in the closet and they end up more vulnerable as a result. If they were more open, then public attitudes would have to change and they would eventually be less likely to be victimized.

    Admittedly, I’m not gay. But the social logic of this seems undeniable.

    Dave

  • Arch Conservative

    Matthew Shepard was obvioulsy singled out and beaten because he was gay. I heard something awhile ago that the guys who beat him did so because he hit on them or something and it insulted their manhood/sexuality. This of course does not justify in any way what was done to MAtthew Shepard and hopefully karma will rear it’s ugly head and these men will experience what they were so afraid of during thier time in prison.

    That being said I would also just like to add that it is people like those who did this horrible thing to Mr. Shepard that make many gay activists and those who share their views deem all who disagree with them as the same caliber of person as those who killed Matthew. This is just not so. Most people who are against gay marriage do not actually have any desire to go out and either physically or in any other way harm gay people just because they are gay.

    On the other hand many on the conservative side see some of the very flambouyant, effeminate, loud, in your face obnoxious characters that the gay community endorses as their spokesmen and role models and they think that all gay people are like this.

    Obviously both sides have preconcieved notions of what the other side must be like but more often than not they’re incorrect.

    The whole foley thing shouldn’t really focus on him being gay but rather that he was a 50 something year old man making sexual advances toward teenagers under his employment.

  • M’Balz iz Hairi

    Nancy. Your right. We need to take all the Republicans and put them on trains and send them to stalag for showers. After the final solution is complete we’ll pull the Monte Cristos out of Monica Lewinski and puff on them while were all munching on carpet.

  • http://mrbounce.blogspot.com/ Mistress La Spliffe

    Dave – I think I more or less agree with your point but I’m wondering if gay GOPs have to grow some balls and come out of the closet, or if the American voting public, and especially (if I may take the liberty of calling you so) libertarians like you have to grow some balls and come out of the ideological closet far enough to insist on having real political choices at the federal level.

    I mean, you can’t be naive enough to think that closeted GOPers aren’t closeted so that the party as a whole can reconcile, through ignoring, the huge split in its libertarian/really-not-libertarian base. How can you tolerate such an opportunistic travesty of an ideological stew?

  • Lumpy

    Now that this ridiculous ‘crisis’ has had time to mature I’d say we’ve learned that the entire GOP especially the leadership need to grow some cojones.

    The left have the balls to lie and distort and misrepresent facts to push their elitist and bigoted agenda. It would be nice to see someone in the GOP brave enough to call them on it.

  • Nancy

    Lie about what, Lumpy? Seriously, what have the “Left” as you call them, been lying about? Are you saying they fabricated the Foley emails? Are you saying they somehow subverted all the Republican pages & congressmen who have since stated they knew about this quite some time ago, and advised Hastert or other party officals of same? I’m a little puzzled, because as far as I can tell, the Dems aren’t even involved in this one; it’s 100% Republican, and solely because the leadership refused to involve those Dems whom they could have involved, & thereby saved themselves some trouble. So please do be specific, and enlighten us all: what Leftist lies & plots are you talking about?

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Nancy, you don’t actually read any news sources, do you?

    Dave

  • JustOneMan

    Nancy gets all her news from Jet!

  • JustOneMan

    “Democrats – Tough on queers, weak on terror”

  • RogerMDillon

    Yeah, Nancy, don’t you watch Fox and listen to Hannity? This was calculated because as Jon Stewart pointed out there could be a better time to point out a congresman was trolling for underage pages. And gasoline prices falling are just a coincidence, right?

  • Nancy

    No – falling gas prices are the same ploy BushCo pulled in 2004 just before the elections, so that all the non-thinking idiots out there would sell their votes to the GOP for cheap gas. Then as soon as the elections were over, Big Oil jacked the prices up again. Poor slobs who voted for Bush never knew what hit them.