Remember when Clinton was accused of being in medias res with Monica while on the phone with various world leaders? Well, it appears that the GOP's own sexual miscreant, Mark Foley, actually held up a House vote while having cybersex with one of his former pages. Too bad Foley resigned so quickly over the weekend. Maybe we could drag him back for some public scolding anyway, huh? Where's Joe Lieberman when you need him?
As bad as Foley's actions are, the right-wing attempt to justify them is even worse. How about Matt Drudge, for instance:
And if anything, these kids are less innocent — these 16 and 17 year-old beasts…and I've seen what they're doing on YouTube and I've seen what they're doing all over the internet — oh yeah — you just have to tune into any part of their pop culture. You're not going to tell me these are innocent babies. Have you read the transcripts that ABC posted going into the weekend of these instant messages, back and forth? The kids are egging the Congressman on! The kids are trying to get this out of him. We haven't got the whole story on this.Wow, sit back and let that sink in for a minute, then consider three things.* * *
You could say 'well Drudge, it's abuse of power, a congressman abusing these impressionable, young 17 year-old beasts, talking about their sex lives with a grown man, on the internet.' Because you have to remember, those of us who have seen some of the transcripts of these nasty instant messages. This was two ways, ladies and gentlemen. These kids were playing Foley for everything he was worth. Oh yeah. Oh, I haven't…they were talking about how many times they'd masturbated, how many times they'd done it with their girlfriends this weekend…all these things and these 'innocent children.' And this 'poor' congressman sitting there typing, 'oh am I going to get any,' you know?
First, presumably, the kids who were serving as Foley's pages were children of upper-crust GOP power brokers. If such kids are "beasts," what does that say of all that traditional GOP parenting going on out there?
Second, federal law, which regulates conduct on the Internet (for the most part) universally defines "minor" as someone who is less than 18 years of age. That means, while whatever Foley may have discussed with his pages might have been legal given the age of consent in Florida or elsewhere (I have no idea), the pages were minors as far as federal law goes. Federal law that has become increasingly harsh and unflexible in the past few years (thanks, largely, to people like Foley).
Third, remember how back during Monicagate Clinton was portrayed as the dirty old man, preying on the innocent young intern? Well, she just happened to be in her early 20s.
So which is it? Are 16-17 year olds wily "beasts" who trick naive Congresscritters into talking dirty or are men in position of power predators when they use their position to seek sexual favors from their underlings? I'm perfectly willing to admit that Clinton was a sleazy scumbag for hitting on the help, if the GOPers are willing to say the same of Foley.
UPDATE: Or how about pill-poppin' Rush, who is floating the conspiracy theory that the Democrats set Foley up. For crying out loud, if the Democrats were with it enough to setup someone would it be some nobody Congressman from Florida? Jeez, Rush.
5 comments:
Wow! They're still kids! This is the same type of thinking that brings us the "she got raped because she was asking for it" ideology!
What an asshat!
First, presumably, the kids who were serving as Foley's pages were children of upper-crust GOP power brokers. If such kids are "beasts," what does that say of all that traditional GOP parenting going on out there?
It doesn't say anything about GOP parenting. Whether you meant that comment to be rhetorical (or not), we don't really know yet whether the kid came from the, as you put it, "upper-crust GOP power brokers." Maybe I'm reading too much into your parenting comment (I've been known to do that before), but it seems like you're making a generalization rather than specificity.
I've read the transcripts, I've seen what the kid said back to this piece of garbage, and it's disgusting all the way around. I have, however, yet to see something about the kid feeling "pressured" into responding about how he liked to masterbate and what he did with the, uh, "byproduct" of said action.
To simply say the kid didn't know what he was doing may not be the most fair of assumptions....
THAT BEING SAID, HOWEVER....does NOT mean everything should be ok. Foley deserves to have EVERYTHING fall on his head. He deserves to be punished, and I hope there is a criminal investigation into this piece of trash.
Now, that being said....it absolutely IS gutter politics for this to come out within 40 days of an election. Even the St. Petersburg Times Editor felt they didn't have enough info. The guy from ABC who "broke" the story (I think his last name was Ross, I'm not sure) even ADMITTED he sat on this stuff because he "was too busy" with 9/11 and Katrina reports. Whatever.
Where did the Instant Messages come from prior to ABC? Oh, that's right, the Soros funded CREW gave the messages to ABC. Even AFTER they gave them to the FBI (allegedly), and they STILL sat on the info until, conveniently, right around election time. Too close to an election to be a coincidence.
Does that excuse that dirtbag Foley? Of course not! I'm not sure what can be done about contact with ex-pages, but that should be looked into.
What really irritates me is the "double-standard" being bandied about by Dem Leaders. There have been plenty of sex scandals involving Democratic Congressmen and Senators before (that is not saying Republicans are exempt....that would be stupid to think so).
Calling out Matt Drudge on his comments about kids similar to this one is a little hipocritical, don't you think? Especially given the proclivities of Democratic fanboys like Mel Reynolds (convicted of 12 counts of sexual assault on a 16 year old girl), Fred Richmond (convicted of soliciting sex from a 16 year old girl), and Mr. Standing Ovation/I have sex with 17 yr. old pages Gerry Studds. Oh, and Barney Frank, too. Using Studds as the example, he was actually censured by the House...and only TWO Democrats voted for the censure. TWO!!! So again, I wouldn't talk about Republicans throwing Foley to the wolves...as they rightfully should have....when Democrats lauded Studds for his "courage" and "steadfastness."
As far as what Rush says, however, I don't think he's (Foley) been set-up. I do, however, question the timing of the release. One would be foolish to think the timing wasn't of primary importance in the release of this information. There is nobody who isn't "of importance" during this election. I can't seriously believe you would try and downplay it like that! With how close the election is supposed to be, every House and Senate seat count.
I see I finally got added to the ol' blogroll. You going to take me off now after my previous comment? ;)
Hmmm...1) a long rant supporting republican flunkies; 2) use of the ALL CAPS function; 3) but no comments about your crazy family. Well, two of out three means that Off Route 75 is in the house! :-)
I kid, I kid. Off Route, of course it's gutter politics and they always suck no matter what side uses them. This time the Republicans got popped, next time it will be the Dems. I still think that Matt Drudge is a dirtbag who is often set up to be a mouthpiece to shout out half-truths and inuendo that supports his favored party. I don't like his method of "journalism" one bit and find it distressing that you seem to support him.
Still, thems the breaks and all that. I guess I must be having an off day because I can't think of anything else worthy of saying. Maybe I'll go harass someone on WV Bloggers for a while. That's always fun! :-)
BTW, now that you're on the blogroll I bet you'll stay there. JDB is cool with dissenting voices and all that cause he's an ACLU fanboy and he turned me into one too during those collegiate years.
Nah, don't worry, OR75, I won't take you out of the blogroll - just takes too much time. :p I keed, I keed.
Now, onto the substance:
Whether you meant that comment to be rhetorical
I did, for the most part. I have no idea where these kids came from. My guess (or assumption, if you prefer) is that they are the sons of fairly well-to-do GOP party members back in Foley's district. I assume that's the same for all the pages at the Capitol (Mollohan's are probably kids of rich Dems, for instance). The crack about GOP parenting was about how, if Drudge's "beast" description is accurate, that the people responsible for that condition are (probably) the people who bankroll the party of "family values" without showing a whole lot themselves.
I have, however, yet to see something about the kid feeling "pressured" into responding
Teenages like to talk about sex - shock, horror! One of the ways Net predators get hooks into these kids is to talk the talk in that area, so to speak. The fact that the kids continued the conversation is far from "egging" on a grown man who should know better. The "the kid talked back defense" never works in court.
To simply say the kid didn't know what he was doing may not be the most fair of assumptions....
I don't assume that. I assume they're immature enough not to know any better than to talk with a Congrescritter about it, however.
As for the timing, I'll grant that it seems a bit fishy. Then again, had Hastert et. al. not sat on these things for years (apparently), it would have resolved itself long ago. Whether Brian Ross (the ABC guy) really held it up for other more pressing stories I don't know.
Regardless, the timing of the disclosure doesn't change the substance of the charges. Isn't whether this of stuff is going on always relevant to the political landscape? Foley had to run for releection every two years, he's been constantly campaigning (as they all do). There would be no "good time" for such things to come out.
Democratic fanboys like Mel Reynolds
Resigned after being convicted of crimes. Should he have dropped out of his releection bid when the allegations were made? Probably. But we do still have the presumption of innocence in this country (in theory).
Fred Richmond (convicted of soliciting sex from a 16 year old girl)
Not quite. According to Wikipedia, that charge was dropped. He was later convicted on drug and tax charges and resigned thereafter.
Mr. Standing Ovation/I have sex with 17 yr. old pages Gerry Studds
First - what a horrible name! Second, his behavior may not have been criminal, given the age of the kid involved (appyling post Lawrence standards, anyway). Third, after the censure he was reelected 5 times. Not sure that's quite the same thing as Foley's situation.
Oh, and Barney Frank, too.
Frank's biggest failing appears to be using his office to fix parking tickets. Not grand (got censured for it), but not the worst thing that goes on in DC.
What I think is reprehensible about Drudge is that, as AD said, he's blaming the victim. The fact that a GOP operative would throw kids under the bus to help deflate a scandal is disgusting. Of course, given how kids are used for political purposes all the time by both parties, I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
I've got no reason to defend sleazy Democrats - I think the guy who got caught with bribe money in his freezer should be kicked out of the party, for instance. I think both parties are fundamentally corrupt at the highest levels. Like Bill Maher said - they're both in thrall to special interests, but the Dems' special interests are a little less frightening. But in a system where the same party controls the White House and both houses of Congress, there's no adequate check on proceedings. Getting back to divided Government would be a victory, at this point.
Post a Comment