Foley artistry

[Wesley]

So, Representative Foley
...
...IMs to young pages...a formerly molested alcoholic..."October surprise" release of information various people have had for some time...Republican leadership scrambling...page hires former Timothy McVeigh lawyer to represent him...Ethics committee opening hearings...

Can this get any weirder? What do you all think of the whole thing?

[vine311]

When the dust settles, this will all be Clinton's fault.

[Wesley]

I guess my most major problem is the apparently timed release of this information for politcal gain. The whole "October surprise" aspect of modern politics.

This man was at the very least abusing his position to manipulate and proposition teenage pages, many of whom wanted a career in politics and felt too scared to file a complaint on the guy. The fact that people had proof of this and sat on it is nothing short of despicable.
On the Republican side, the leadership may have known and done nothing. However, they should not be the sole target of anger. Someone was collecting evidence to release to the press, and it certainly seems to have been done so when most politically beneficial to the opposition party.
The fact that either of these parties could have stopped this, but chose instead to try to hide it entirely or wait to release the information when it was most beneficial to do so is beyond contempt. I wonder how many more abuses occured between the first tangible proof and the release of the evidence?

"We're for the kids" my ass. Neither side is for the kids, neither side is for openess or honesty in government, and neither side is for you. Both sides are sick, corrupt, power mad, manipulative, and out of control.

[kbadr]

Dammit! I thought this was actually a thread about foley artists, and I got all excited. Then I saw that it was a thread about some jackass pederast, and you can fill in the obvious punchline.

[nadine]

I think it should be pretty obvious from my posts that I'm a liberal.
But the democrats are a bit too gleeful over this. Here's something from the Republicans side:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Congr ... ex_scandal

he 1983 Congressional page sex scandal was a political scandal in the United States involving members of the United States House of Representatives.

On July 14, 1983 the House Ethics Committee concluded that Rep. Dan Crane (R-Ill.) and Rep. Gerry Studds (D-Mass.) had engaged in sexual relationships with minors, specifically 17-year-old congressional pages. In Crane's case, it was a 1980 relationship with a female page and in Studds's case, it was a 1973 relationship with a male page. Both representatives immediately pleaded guilty to the charges and the committee decided to simply reprimand the two.

However, Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) demanded their expulsion. On July 20, 1983, the House voted for censure, the first time that censure had been imposed for sexual misconduct. Crane, who subsequently apologized for his transgression, lost his bid for reelection in 1984.

Studds, although he did admit that he had made "a very serious error in judgement", also called a press conference with the former page, in which both stated that the young man, who was 17, consented. Studds did not break any U.S. laws in what he called a "private relationship."[1] He continued to be reelected until his retirement in 1996

[Brian Boyko]

Can this get any weirder? What do you all think of the whole thing?

Yes, it can get weirder. Fox News is now reporting Foley as "Rep. Foley, (D-Fla.)"

(Foley, by the way, is a Republican, and because they've repeated the "mistake" a couple times during the broadcast, this looks more like malice than stupidity.)

[shando]

I think it should be pretty obvious from my posts that I'm a liberal.
But the democrats are a bit too gleeful over this. Here's something from the Republicans side:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Congr ... ex_scandal

he 1983 Congressional page sex scandal was a political scandal in the United States involving members of the United States House of Representatives.

On July 14, 1983 the House Ethics Committee concluded that Rep. Dan Crane (R-Ill.) and Rep. Gerry Studds (D-Mass.) had engaged in sexual relationships with minors, specifically 17-year-old congressional pages. In Crane's case, it was a 1980 relationship with a female page and in Studds's case, it was a 1973 relationship with a male page. Both representatives immediately pleaded guilty to the charges and the committee decided to simply reprimand the two.

However, Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) demanded their expulsion. On July 20, 1983, the House voted for censure, the first time that censure had been imposed for sexual misconduct. Crane, who subsequently apologized for his transgression, lost his bid for reelection in 1984.

Studds, although he did admit that he had made "a very serious error in judgement", also called a press conference with the former page, in which both stated that the young man, who was 17, consented. Studds did not break any U.S. laws in what he called a "private relationship."[1] He continued to be reelected until his retirement in 1996

Actually, Nadine:

Doing his bit for Operation Save Our Majority, Marc Ambinder at the Hotline (the National Journal's news service for political junkies) tries very hard to circulate a GOP urban legend:

It's the talking point of the day for Republicans -- and yes, it is a talking point.
Gerry Studds (D-MA) had sex with a 17-year-old male page in 1983. He was reprimanded. Republicans wanted to censure him. But 79 Dems voted against upgrading the condemnation.

It may be the talking point of the day, but it's also a lie. Studds was censured, not reprimanded -- even though the latter was the penalty recommended both for him and for GOP page bender Dan Crane by the House Ethics Committee. Republican backbenchers, led by that paragon of moral virtue, Newt Gingrich, wanted to expel them both.

The vote to upgrade Studds' reprimand to censure was 338 yeahs to 87 nays, and while I don't have the partisan breakdown, I wouldn't be surprised if 79 of those nay votes were Dems -- excessive partisanship being such a bipartisan disease in Washington. But, the vote to upgrade Crane's reprimand to a censure passed by only 289 yeahs to 136 nays. I'm guessing not all of those 136 votes were cast by the heathen Democrats.

In both cases, the final vote on censure was overwhelmingly lopsided -- 421 to 3 in Crane's case, and 420 to 3 in Studd's.

(My source on all this is "House Censures Crane and Studds," Washington Post, July 21, 1983, page A1. I looked it up using Nexis, but haven't been able to find a copy on line.)

I should also note that under House Democratic Caucus rules, Studds was forced to give up his chairmanship of a House Merchant Marine subcommittee. I think we all remember the GOP's caterwauling in a recent similar situation -- the elephants didn't want to force Tom DeLay to give up his Majority Leadership even after he was freaking indicted.

[nadine]

I'm somewhat confused, but in reading this.. it sounds like in the end Studds, a democrat did have sex with a page right? And still served office instead of resigning like Foley did?

[Jastroch]

I'm kinda sick of hearing that this was the democrats fault, or that there was any political shennanigans. I'm not going to bother sighting my sources, but it looks like Republicans were keeping this from democrats for about a year. But oh yeah, it's a liberal smear.

Have you people been watching Hannity?

[shando]

Have you people been watching Hannity?

I would rather let Arthur near my family than watch Hannity. Ever.

[shando]

Nadine, what I was getting at is that the Wikipedia entry is misleading. Yes, Studds was also involved in inappropriate behavior. But there wasn't a coverup. And the real issue with the whole Foley is not the sexual conduct of an individual member (icky and inappropriate regardless of sexual orientation and party affiliation) but rather the rather bald-faced attempt, no matter how they try to spin it, by the party in power to sweep these issues completely under the rug in an attempt to avoid potential political damage. At least that's where my outrage over this deal comes from. And it's because it's part of a larger pattern with these clowns.

And as far is this being some kind of "October surprise," that doesn't wash. If the Dems had this knowledge, why have it come out 5 weeks before the election. Why not wait until the week before? And the Repubs could have easily dissarmed the damage oh, say at least a year ago in an off-election year, by dealing with the issue swiftly and appropriately. The Republican leadership bothced this big time and all the flack they're catching is from the holes they keep digging for themselves with their shifting stories, evasions, etc. As usual in politics it's not the crime but the cover-up that gets people in serious trouble.

[Jastroch]

Also, Bob Ross, the ABC dude that broke the story, alluded in a New York Times article that a Republican staffer leaked the IMs.

Democratic plot indeed...

[arthursimone]

Have you people been watching Hannity?

I would rather let Arthur near my family than watch Hannity. Ever.

Robin Goodfellow whispers things about Shannon's family in my ears while I sleep. Robin Goodfellow watches Hannity. there is a link.

[arthursimone]

As usual in politics it's not the crime but the cover-up that gets people in serious trouble.

yes.

[arthursimone]

part of me wants to hate this "sex scandal."

Because Republicans deserve to burn. On everything, the budget, the war, the environment, civil liberties, everything. I hate that sex sells, that sex is sexy, that sexy sex sex is sexiest, that sex scandals trump all others, that it takes a lurid story to get people to even realize that they have a government.

but I'll take it.