« War, Casualties And Public Opinion: Interview With William A. Boettcher III and Michael D. Cobb | Main | The Real State Of Denial »

September 30, 2006



the man needs jail time. His life is already ruined, but he still needs jail time, AND supervision the rest of his sorry life. The boy will need help too.

The thing I see here in the forum is that you are compartmentalizing a criminal, indeed a deviant behavior as somehow belonging to all and only Republicans. This is the old problem shown in the following false logic:
"ALL Beagles are dogs", therefore "ALL dogs are Beagles."

Obviously this is not so, and to imply such a false grouping essentially undercuts your total credibility.

I might go further and say that all Presidents do not do questionable things with cigars to plumb female interns in the Oval Office. Not even Democratic Presidents.

way to go joditroll

the repuglican speaker of the house has been protecting a pedophile for almost a year

but that is nothing compared to a blowjob between consenting adults

you're so depraved and fucked up that you have no ability to feel outrage that the highest congressional office has been used as a PEDOPHILE PROTECTION AGENCY

but that don't stop you from trying to make political hay from bill clinton

your mother must be so proud


Monica was an adult. She was in her twenties and knew exactly what she was doing. No excuse for Clinton, but he wasn't breaking the law by petting her. His crime was lying to a grand jury, not consensual sex.

These boys (more than one) are 15-16 years old, and under the supervision of the congress-critters. This is sexual harassment of an employee as well as child pornography, enticement into sexual acts, crossing state lines, using the Internet, and an entire heap of other criminal statutes.

I don't care if it was gay sex or not, but these were children being preyed upon by a filthy old man.

Worse, the Republican leadership has known about it for months and done nothing. What if one of these confused boys had suicided?

And, far worse, the parents of the one child wanted it quieted down. Their son thought it was "sick, sick, sick, ..., sick" and they wouldn't back him? I had parents like that... a kid feels much more alone when the family won't support justice.

Where are the much-vaunted family values?

Castration seems a suitable punishment.


We're going to be hearing a lot more about how this is Clinton's fault. You know, from phone-sex creeps like Bill O'Reilly, or criminals like Tom Delay, or drug addicts like Rush Limbaugh.

Should I go on? We're in hell.


I made no accusations that Denny Hastert is a pedophile. He is many things, included someone who has purportedly accepted bribes that damage the security of the US. But in this case, his crime involves enabling a pedophile. There are clear procedures for dealing with this kind of problem (even assuming they didn't know about the more graphic, more criminal IM chats). But Denny didn't follow those procedures. That's obstruction.

There seems to be alot of obstruction...and why is this any different from the Catholic church who for many years obstructed justice for these kids. Let me tell you something else. There is one more little peice of information needed for everyone to understand the damage done to these kids. One theory that right now has a great deal of scientific and mental health spot light is the idea that invalidation is the key to why sexual abuse and the developement of personality disorders (life long patterns of behavior for which the prognosis is mixed and chronic) are so throroughly connected. The key is an invalidating environment.

What's that mean?? When a child's personal experiences are not validated this creates more serious damage. Because then the child starts to doubt their own experiences and their own sense of self. They don't learn to regulate emotion, because reality is denied as a form of emotion regulation. (that's called denial and sets the seed for other compulsions to develop to regulate emotion instead of facing a feeling and regulating it). It is, believe it or not, perhaps more damaging for a child to be invalidated than it is for the child to be abused.

Highly authoritarian homes are often very invalidating. Emotion regulation skills are about denial and they do not teach and empower a concept of self that develops by being effective with reality.

The fact that Hastert obstructed here, that the parents were complicit in keeping this quiet says this kid needs counseling yesterday. Way different outcome for a kid who's issues are hushed or denied than for a child who's parent are supportive and get the child the help, support and validation needed for them to "cope" with the issue and build a safe and secure sense of self.

I work in the mental health field specifically with personality disorders. I am getting more and more certain that like the church the republican party has more culpability here.

Jodi, keep focusing on that Bill Clinton blow job, it helps you cope so you don't have to deal with reality, I understand. I truly do.

The truth is in front of us and for the sake of the kids it must be told.

One of the things I've always liked about reality based sites is the "let the chips fall where they may" approach. Rep or Dem simply is irrelevant and actually a smoke screen as the unethical or immoral choices are the real story. How Foley was given a pass by his leadership is extraordinarily troubling, more so that perhaps Foley's invasive behavior towards the Page. Just as the leadership gave Bush a pass on the war etc etc etc, apparently they also are exposed as rubber stamping their approval of a pedaphile in their own party mix under their own roof. That fact is what I can't get past.

Well said freepatriot.


Well, the terror bill is basically an organized, blatant attempt to give Bush immunity for war crimes. So it's clear these guys will go to great lengths to protect their own.


This thing is not going away. And any attempts by Republican shills to equate it with Bill and Monica are going to rebound on them big time. I suspect the msm are digging like hell on this story as we speak and next week we'll see a storm of activity. It will be a contest between the sex angle, which is pretty bad if you have read the emails, and the Simon & Schuster Woodward publicity machine. May the best man win. Either way the fallout is going to be horrible for Bush and the Republicans.

Question for John Shimkus: What was the precise warning you gave Foley about cutting off his contacts with the pages?

Did you warn him to stop e-mailing? And did that drive him to use what he thought was the less traceable Instant Messaging? Did Foley think he was fooling you by complying with the letter of your warning and not the spirit?

One difference between Hastert's Pedophile Protection and the Catholic Church is that the latter didn't have the recent outing of the church as a moral guide; Hastert did.


The IMs are from 2003, I believe, so they precede the Alexander page emails.

Also note, the IMs were written from FL, so Foley would then fall under FL laws protecting minors, not the DC ones.

Just to clarify: not only was "the Republican leadership of Congress...informed about Foley's behavior", Foley himself WAS Republican leadership. The guy was deputy whip.

If they had investigated a year ago, they would have turned up the IMs. That's what happened this week: ABC reported the emails, then a bunch of former pages came forward with the IMs. If they had asked the pages a year ago, I'm sure someone would have stepped forward. So the real failure was in the House leadership.

Unf**ingbelievable. This is what happens when a party so demonizes homosexuality that people with gay tendencies have to use children because they are unable to have sex with men. For a man his age this is clearly about power, too.

New meme: The Republicans can't be trusted to keep your kids safe. If the Dems had been told . . . . If Rodney Alexander had still been a Dem, they would have known.

Jodi and others; leadershiop is at fault here. it is they who are acting as in loco parentis. I agree that while Foly is a sick individual, that doesn't make all R's sick and reprehensible, but that clearly applies to R voters. I don't think it applies to my three R congresspeople from CT or Olympia Snowe, etc.

But someone along the chain of command is guilty of not doing enough. We know that because Foley resigned only yesterday, whereas the notification happened somewhere in the 10-11 months prior.

There is no avoiding that, and no way to avoid the responsibility of someone in Repubican leadership who was enabling a pedophile.

beyond that, there's back story and I'm sure there's more to come. This is damning without the back story.

my questions is, would conspiring to keep criminal activity silent be yet another crime? How many of these people that did keep it silent are also deviants? A YEAR? no, actually it has been many years, and several pages. We don't know how many others? Has this perv's computer been confiscated, or is he deleting all files now? Is there a legal investigation and an arrest for the very laws that he created, and rammed through the ass of congress?
are we not hearing about this because it is Saturday and the justice dept. is not at work?

Brian Bilbray (candidate in CA-50- Duke's old spot) lists only 3 issues on his campaign website: 1) immigration, 2) fiscal responsibility and 3)protecting our children from sexual predators. Yep, the war on terra doesn't even make it on his list.

On Monday I am going to call his office and ask him what action he will take against predators in Congress. I really want to know because it is such an important issue to him.

The child pervert issue is really a big favorite of right wing talk radio. Some of the radio personalities even read lists of names of child predators. They cover every case of child abduction that has sexual overtones. There is no form of torture too gruesome that it is undeserved by child perverts according to right wing radio. I am not saying that these aren't horrible things, but talk radio blows up these cases beyond all proportion and seeds fear in the listeners. These are the same folks spewing fear and hatred about immigrants. Their listeners really eat this stuff up.

When I first saw Bilbray's list of issues, I thought he may have planned his campaign in co-ordination with right wing talk radio - which is very popular in CA-50. I have friends who listen to it all the time. Semi-friends, that is. I can't wait to hear how the locals handle it.

I hope other readers will check the campaign sites of their local wing nuts and see if they too are passionate about child predators - and if so- give them a call on Monday and ask what they intend to do about it.


In any case, I think at every Dem-GOP appearance between now and the election, the Dem should ask, "are there other sexual predators your party is hiding?"

Make them all guilty, for their cover-up.

The larger issue here is the illusionist skills of Mr. Rove and his PR team. They've been able to control things by illusion supported by a number of techniques - ignoring criticism, flooding the media with talking points, rapid "spinning" of stories, and "dirty tricks." It would seem that the correct way to deal with the Foley story would be to attack the "cover up" as you are doing here, but also to expose the "spin" as it is generated. The MSM seems to have awakened from its torpor, but isn't yet up to speed on exposing "spin." Olbermann's fine, but hardly watched by the majority.

And I gree with a lot of the commentors on this post, prosecution and jail time would be a good way to keep this story alive. It needs to outlast the current news-time of stories, several days. My guess is that Rove will try to deal with it by ignoring it...

Why did Foley keep child-protection job?

"House Majority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) told The Washington Post last night that he had learned this spring of inappropriate 'contact' between Foley and a 16-year-old page. Boehner said he then told House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.). Boehner later contacted The Post and said he could not remember whether he talked to Hastert.

It was not immediately clear what actions Hastert took. His spokesman had said earlier that the speaker did not know of the sexually charged online exchanges between Foley and the boy."

So Boehner, at the very least, knew about the "inappropriate contact." And Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.) who oversees the congressional pages as head of the Page Board, the group responsible for the teenagers who work essentially as gofers and doorholders for lawmakers, knew even earlier.

My guess is that Rove will try to deal with it by ignoring it

It's possible Rove is the source of this story. If the R leadership has known about this for almost a year, it's possible they've been holding it in reserve to use if big-time distraction is needed. I don't think the story that needs masking is the torture bill (Americans have been proven to be completely craven on that issue), nor do I think it's the revelations in Woodward's new book (what we know about so far is the same story Americans have been ignoring for years), so what is it? Is Fitz about to indict? Maybe on the war crimes Congress just excused Bush for? Maybe there's a real blockbuster in Woodward's book that hasn't yet leaked?

In my comment way above, i hope it's clear that I was try to say that the perversion does not apply across the board to Rs... not voters, not all in Congress. but leadership, as noted above, has questions to answer, and they require immediate answers.

ABC's getting the content of those IM's out is a big deal. The original meme that Foley's emails were just misunderstood sank like an anvil. If that sparkling prose gets into the MSM, then comparisons to Clinton will not be a problem.

I agree with several of the above posters that the fact that the House leadership knew about this, didn't tell the Democratic member of the committee, and failed to investigate it is incredibly incendiary on several levels. An early story even said incoming pages were warned about him. That indicates there was a pattern of harrassment to which the leadership was turning a blind eye. And he was chair of the caucus dealing with sexual predators? Profumo-style poster boy for Republican "values" hypocrisy!

In terms of impact, I think we'll see the Republicans sink much further over the next week int he generic congressional polls. This will end up involving much more than one seat.

It is unfortunately true that there is a common thread that ties this scandal with the Iraq war, the attack on the Wilsons, Abu Graib, Gitmo, secret prisons, torture, warrantless eavesdropping, illegal election activities (phone jamming, illegal campaign contributions, etc.), patronage scandals (DHS, HUD, etc.),and Abramoff/DeLay/K Street. Don't write me off as tin foil hat crazy just yet. The link is the abuse of power; the deliberate erasing of the boundary between legitimate and illegimate uses of authority. In every case, Republicans consciously chose to cross the line between legal and illegal activity (despite explicit warnings from legal professionals in most of those cases). In every case, individuals who make up the leadership of the Republican party are directly implicated. The President, Vice-President, their closest advisors including several Cabinet level appointees, the Senate and House leadership, and the national party apparatus.

Of course, we also have the secondary effects of the cronyism that inevitably goes along with the corruption. The Katrina response fiasco, the disastrous maladministration of Iraq by the CPA and war profiteering that followed, the abuse of intelligence, blundering at home (Medicare Part D, irresponsible deficit spending, etc.) and abroad (creating more terrorists, alienating our allies, etc.). This is the stuff that would be "merely" criminally negligent, except that it is the rather direct result of the criminal behavior described above.

Sadly, in the face of this prolonged criminal assault against the rule of law and the American people, the Democrats, the conventional media, and opinion leaders have, with few exceptions, been enablers. Only the courts and a few honest lawyers have done much to stop this criminal enterprise. That's a pretty thin reed to grasp when democracy is being strangled. Couple all this with global warming and our unsustainable economy, and you have a society that looks very much on the verge of collapse (in the Jared Diamond sense). I have no nostalgia for some golden age of the past, just an impending sense of doom about the near future.

One thing I do know, is that when you realize you're in a hole, the first thing to do is to stop digging (btw, that's the best response to the slanderous "cut and run" meme). It is time to "throw the rascals out". We need to elect Democrats who understand that we want them to stand up to the criminals.

Hey, ignorant moron Jodi:

Sex between consenting adults, whatever else it might be, is LEGAL. Sex with minors is ILLEGAL.

Hopefully this is presented simply enough that your halfwit Republican brain can "get it."

Now go be a "good Republican" as defined in the statement "The only 'good Republicans' are pushing up daisies."

Zogby has released a new poll that has a batch of those stupid cute questions like, which would you rather have a beer with ... one of the questions is who would you trust to babysit your kids, a Rep or a Dem?? And the poll came up trusting the Foley side of the aisle.

"...the Foley side of the aisle."

Can't we just refer to it now as the Pedophile Party?


I'm kind of fond of the "Predator Party." Kind of fits a lot of their other MOs, too.

So, are we coming to a consensus that, one lesson Bush as leader of the Predator Party has taught his followers, Rep Foley stalked a Page on the internet BECAUSE HE COULD? Yes, EW I do like the harmony of that tag Predator Party

let's form a swift boat committee, and run some ads...


In any case, I think at every Dem-GOP appearance between now and the election, the Dem should ask, "are there other sexual predators your party is hiding?"

or, at least for incumbent Republicans in the House, "When did you find out about Foley's attacks on children? Why didn't you know? Why didn't you do something?"


No, see, I'm trying to play with the notion of cover-ups. There is enough other smoke--enough other sexual predators (not to mention people like Don Sheldon who narrowly avoided his own total meltdown) that we should just raise the general question, about others. That's the kind of distrust they sow, willingly, when they let a predator continue to access children. The point is, after having covered this up, why should we believe there isn't more?

Sorry, that should read Don Sherwood, the mistress choker.

Depending how aggressive the press is in digging up the extent of GOP leadership cover-up/enabling of Foley, it's possible this scandal could turn out the equivalent of the House banking contretemps in the '94 cycle. No one would have voted out their Dem representative solely on the basis of bouncing a few checks at the House bank -- it was a truly trivial matter. But it dovetailed beautifully with the notion that the Dem leadership was decadent/lazy/unconcerned with real people, and, for a country still stuck in economic doldrums, provided a crystallization of the notion that it was time for a change.

No one, of course, thinks Foley's crimes prove all Pubs are pedophiles (nice try at straw-man, Jodi). But 1) it damages Republicans because it ties into the idea that many religious conservatives are hypocrites (Frank Luntz said in '02 that the Catholic Church scandal hurt the GOP, simply because the party is so identified now with the religious establishment, and they were shown to not be living up to their pronouncements); and 2) more important, as William Ockham says, it dovetails into the primary Democratic rallying cry for this election: that this GOP Congress will not hold anyone in its own party accountable. This second point, I think, could provide crystallization for our side's campaign just the way the House bank did for the GOP 12 years ago, and, combined with ongoing bad news from Iraq (thank you, Bob Woodward), give the party the final push to win contested seats.

emptywheel, I'm agreeing. I was just thinking, if it's asked "how many others is your party hiding?" the answer would probably come back, "none, this was an abominable single bad apple and we all condemn him." I was thinking if it's asked "when did you know?" then the answer has to be "when I read about in the papers" or else that's obviously a cover-up, but there are some who can't answer that because it's documented that they knew earlier (right?) and there are others who can't credibly claim not to have known from what they must have seen and overheard -- I was thinking, keep to the timeline on this incident and force them to admit the cover-up or to outright lie in what will eventually become an untenable story (that may stay alive through Nov.)

but yes, same motivation, just different approach. And lest I be accused of exploiting this issue for the election, I think whether you have a party in power that protects child molesters is EXACTLY what informed voters should be clear about before an election, so they know to whom they are entrusting their country.

I find it bitterly ironic that this same cabal just voted to NOT give the benefit of doubt to any number of detainees perhaps innocently swept up in haphazard raids on terrorist suspects (as so many at Gitmo and Abu Ghraib were) -- but Mark Foley? Hell, he's OK! What, there's actual evidence of criminal activity? So? He SAID he didn't do anything wrong! Nothing to see here! Go back to chairing the Missing and Exploited Children Caucus, Congressman Pervert!

All candidates- both Rep and Dems should be pressed about accountability. They should be asked if they think anyone found to be involved in the coverup should resign. Should they be prosecuted?

Cyber sex with a minor is a crime. The FBI should be going over Hasterts office right now....uh..geez Hastert was adamently opposed to that wasn't he.....


Ah there you go, damn scientist, working from facts.

Actually, I'm totally in favor of facts. But I just like raising wider doubts. As soon as they answer, "this was just one depraved man," after all, we get to say, "then why didn't you do something about it last year" and "how can we believe you when you buried this for a year?"

~wheel hey it was you who tuned me in to the importance of constructing timelines for untangling deception!

We are talking about more than one page here, right? Or at least, more than one boy? If these IMs (which are quite explicit) are from 2003, but the e-mails (which are not) are from 2005, and this is the same boy, then what was it about the e-mails but not the IMS that "freaked him out?"

I've been going from this summary that says more than one page, yes. From the references to "e-mails" I've seen, it's not clear to me if that is being used as a catch-all term that here really means IMs -- anyone have clarity on that?

What's clear to me is that the current reporting is multiple pages were implied by the first boy who came forward (who said "that people in the program had warned his class to watch out for Mr. Foley.") and that in fact additional boys have since come forward, as of yesterday.

What's completely unclear to me is when these IMs (or emails if they were emails) were sent, when other members of the House (like Shimkus, who already has the scandal on his wikipedia entry) first heard about it, how they heard about it, and what they did.


Oh, sure, narratives are critical for understanding events. But once you understand them (kind of), they're not always the most effective for making hay of events.

Here's what I understand so far.

At some point, all the incoming pages in a class were warned against Foley.

In 2003, he sent the IMs from FL to a boy (that's important because the rules for consent are different in FL). That boy appears to have just come forward (to ABC) yesterday.

In 2005, he wrote those emails to the Alexander page. That guy seems to have responded right away, by informing an Alexander staffer. Alexander informed Thomas Reynolds. And someone informed Shimkus--though they seem to be trying to fudge who informed him. Shimkus interviewed Foley and gave him the all-clean. At this point in Fall 2005, three Reps in addition to Foley knew.

And then, at some point, journalists started pursuing the story, and I'm guessing that's when Boehner and Denny were officially (but not really) informed.

Two other potential wrinkles are that:

  • Foley and the House Clerk appear to have interviewed Foley just before the Clerk, Jeff Trandahl, resigned.
  • Foley's COS, Kirk Fordham, had just moved to Reynolds' COS when this happened. Which means Alexander sort of went to the guy who could best take care of Foley, his old COS.

Oh, let me add to that. Boehner was informed this Spring (though it's not clear that he was informed about the Alexander page--just a "contact" between Foley and a 16-yo page). And then, if you believe the story he told before they coordiated on this, he told Denny.

I added a post. The details of who knew what in leadership pale before the overall knowledge that leadership knew. And they did know.

Now, the details matter, but with 5 weeks before the election, those details may not be known before november.

And FL papers apparently got the emails (but not, apparently, the IMs) last year, and asked Alexander about them. And one other page whose contact with Foley was not predatory (that's probably the other page mentioned in the email).

The timing is kind of odd. Who leaked the emails last year? I'd be inclined to believe Mahoney got the emails this year, and leaked them (and what timing, huh? For the last week of session before the election). And after those got leaked, another kid(s) came forward.

Who officially broke the story this week? It wasn't ABC. Was it rawstory?


True, that. Now that ~pockets got me riled about narrative, I'm just trying to figure it out.

never discourage emptywheel in the pursuit of detail ;-)

This is a parallel concept.

Who officially broke the story this week? It wasn't ABC

Looks like CREW had the emails.

The e-mails were posted Friday on Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington's Web site after ABC News reported their existence. The group asked the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to investigate the exchange Foley had with the boy, who served as a page for Rep. Rodney Alexander, R-La.
AP 9/29/06

from the CREW site, they get it:

Washington, DC – Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) calls upon the House of Representatives to appoint an outside counsel to investigate the House leadership’s role in covering up Rep. Mark Foley’s (R-FL) inappropriate email exchanges with a sixteen-year-old former House page.

Great Post at TPM read it all.

I don't think cover-up is too strong a word since there was apparently an active effort to keep the allegations from the only Democrat who serves on the Page Board. That decision, I think, speaks volumes.


Finally, one detail here isn't getting enough attention. Rep. Alexander (R-LA), the first member of Congress to be alerted to the problem, says he contacted the NRCC. That's the House Republicans' election committee, a political organization entirely separate from the House bureaucracy and the Congress. (The head of the NRCC this cycle is Rep. Tom Reynolds (R-NY).) That is, to put it mildly, not in the disciplinary and administrative chain of command of the House of Representatives. Considering that the issue involved a minor, it seems highly inappropriate to discuss the matter with anyone not charged with policing the House
TPM 9/30/06

Well, that was certainly revealing--------------------

"way to go joditroll"
"your mother must be so proud"
"you're so depraved and fucked up"

"Well said freepatriot"
--John Casper

"Hey, ignorant moron Jodi:
presented simply enough that your halfwit Republican brain can "get it."
Now go be a "good Republican" as defined in the statement "The only 'good Republicans' are pushing up daisies."
-- TCinLA

The above speak for themselves. I don't have to paint them, they are already dripping with their own venom.


"the Dem should ask, "are there other sexual predators your party is hiding?"
-- emptywheel

This one and some of the others are a bit different.
emptywheel, do you really want to bring up any party's sexuality as a campaign issue in general. Or maybe the comment should be "dirt begats dirt." I personally don't want to talk about the Democrat Party's sex life anymore than about the Republican's. Of course despite all the worries here about dictatorships and such you can still do it if you wish. I can only say I would be turned off, and I would expect the Independent or uncomitted voters would be more uneasy with the Democrats and their public alliances, than the Republicans.
Since I can understand Rove's logic fairly well, and it is logic which is why it works, I would say that he wouldn't be at all put off by such an attack.

Again, those who keep statistics on this sort of thing, do you think your tally of "wrong" sexually related behavior reflects worse on the Repubicans or the Democrats. And for my own personal curiosity, what affiliation was Michael Jackson?

"Jodi, keep focusing on that Bill Clinton blow job"
--Katie Jensen, former mental health worker

Katie, I think I understand your confusion. I was speaking about a real cigar. I won't explain anymore. Still I would suggest a reread for you. As for the implication, I almost put you in the dripping venom category. It was a toss up.

Everyone. I was [unpleasantly] surprised.

Like I told DemFromCT once, I like this place. It is full of intelligent, knowligible and fervent people, though very rigid in their ideas. DemFromCT said something like ~what do you expect in a political blog?~

And I am not a Republican. I do tend to vote that way, but I also vote Democratic and Independent. For example, and I keep pinching myself to keep from repressing it, I voted for Kerry in 2004.

Now for anyone that says I was comparing criminal behavior to reprehensible behavior (Clinton). I wasn't. If you read what I said, you would see that I was saying you can't make these broad generalizations from individual acts.

Now as far as any conspiracy, or institutional wrong doing by the Republican leadership, that remains to be seen. I would imagine that whoever knew anything didn't know the extent or if it was other than some kind of vengeful "trick." I personally think that it would have been appropriate to report any complaint to the local sheriff or police office if the information I have seen in this forum were presented. However I am not a lawyer. I don't know what is required of someone who just has heard something. I am too logical and straightforward for that profession.

The real question is why if it was reported, wasn't it reported directly to the local sheriff or police office, even a teacher, or a parent. The law is explicit about what has to be done if those people got the complaint. [[That it wasn't is suspicious.]] I wish I could make my characters bold.

I notice the House jumped right in last night to refer this over to Ethics Committe where leadership will be scrambling to grasp control rather than see a Special Prosecutor be appointed. Where is the FBI in all this, I mean if they can break into Jefferson's office, might be a good idea to get a warrant for Foley's? As it looks as though we have at least Florida & DC locals involved I would think FBI would be raising questions.

The real question is why if it was reported, wasn't it reported directly to the local sheriff or police office, even a teacher, or a parent.

You recognize it is a criminal matter, and not a matter of his 'sexuality.' I think you will find everyone here in agreement that the issue is he was molesting children, and also in agreement with you that it is not about sexual behavior but sexual attacks and attempted rape. And if a Democrat were responsible we would feel the same way about that person.

What pissed everyone off is your suggestion (which you continue) that Democrats' sex lives are also at issue. It is especially troubling since you already recognize, as I said, that this is not about anyone's sex life, it is about attacks on children.

I am too logical and straightforward for that profession.
"She could steal but she could not rob."


I'll just second what my empty-friend said. And note that at last count there are five alleged sexual predators currently employed by the GOP. Two is a coincidence. Five is a pattern.

Let's call them the Turn coat party. Why?? Because they turned their backs on the 9/ll warnings, they turned their backs on cia reports that said war with Iraq would erupt into civil war, they turned their backs on the weapons inspectors, they turned their back on the U.N, they turned thier backs on a cia undercover agent, they turned their backs on the Katrina victims, they turned their backs on afghanistan, they turned their backs on the federal laws of this country and most of all they have turned their backs on the American people as they stuffed their pockets full of money made as war profiteers.

We have our arms out and our brains in gear to solve the problems that this seriously dysfunctional white house has caused. Let's go back to the American way and stand proud again.

I personally want the association with treason...they are turn coats, they are traitors.

Hey, I am for the death penalty. Call it the Texas syndrome. My brothers even pushed me to get a "concealed carry permit."
I have no patience with criminal deviants and not much for deviants in general.

emptypockets, what I am saying that if you try to paint the Republicans as deviant as a group, then the Democrats will have their history reviewed and just off the top of my head I will say it is not pristine and pure.

Then of course there will be a lot of finger pointing and questions of which counts and how much, and so on.

I don't think that it will be good for either side.


Put the criminals in jail, and don't get distracted from "good and bad governance."

You are attacking the "tarbaby" and are going to get stuck, if you get embroiled with this sex stuff outside the justice system.


It will be interesting to watch the right-wing pundits search for a way to blame Clinton for Foley's attacks on teenage boys. I don't think they will be more successful at it than Jodi has been.

If you molest a child, you go to jail. If you know your colleague is molesting children in the office and you cover it up, you are complicit. I don't see how much clearer it gets.

Some on the right will see that clearly, and rightfully repudiate those involved in the scandal and demand a bipartisan investigation -- others, like Jodi, will try to "handle" it with rubber gloves, and will be ready for the rubber room before it's over.

Like I said they are the turn coat party. Nothing to see here.

hey jodi, we all know you're a troll

trolling doesn't work when your potential victims are laughing their asses off over your pathetic posts

tell your handlers that you are done at this site, and you need a new blog to victimize

and better luck next time

try not to embarrass yourself next time

It will be interesting to watch the right-wing pundits search for a way to blame Clinton for Foley's attacks on teenage boys.

hey emptypockets, we got a troll tight here trying to do the same thing

according to joditroll, catching a repuglican congressional leader in the act of PEDOPHILIA will reflect poorly on Democrats

apparently the people will ignore the coverup of PEDOPHILIA by repuglicans in congress will remind everybody of Clinton's penis

hey jodi, why don't you just go blow Bill and get over your fetish

please attack the logic not the person

Looks to me like polly, channeling TPM, has the story here. Alexander took this to the NRCC.

That (and, oh yeah, the pedophilia) is what makes this scandal different in kind. It was conceived as a coverup from the get-go.

Meanwhile, I would think law enforcement might want to start asking questions of pages at least as far back as 2001, given Foley's, let's say... less than entirely arm's length farewell (certainly as compared to his colleagues') to that year's page class.

All, please stop calling Jodi a troll. She's far from that, and has been an active particpant here for some time.

Disagree with some class, okay?

Next thing that needs to happen right now: the FBI and police need to go to Foley's office and home and BREAK DOWN HIS DOORS. Collect any evidence against him. Don't give him a warning. Courtesy of our Supreme Court's recent Hudson v Michigan (2006) decision, we're done with knock and announce niceties.

The other Republican Congressman won't mind either. Because they will be too busy sweeping up the debris on their own doorstoops to think about others. Batter down all their doors. Republican leaders helped suppress this crime. Let's find some evidence in their homes and offices before they can destroy it. If we hear any complaints (fat chance), well better luck next time Republicans (and some democratics), blithely accepting nominees to the Supreme Court.

Knock and announce should have been upheld, but then I'm not in a position to have maintained it. Better to demonstrate its awesome force and make republicans realize what they have wrought.

Preying on (not 'praying') children/minors is a crime and should be reported immediately and investigated quickly.
I just know Nancy Grace will join hands with us on this one and will soon be dancing widdershins around the fire. (Jodi will learn the steps eventually.)

Disagree with some class, okay?

so when we're discussing a repuglican pedophile, it shows class to mention Bill Clinton's penis ???

but pointing out how references to Clinton's penis are stupid repuglican tricks designed to dilute the impact of the crimes committed by repulicans in congress shows no class ???

anybody who wants to defend foley by mentioning Bill Clinton is a dispicable human being, case closed

this isn't about Bill Clinton. This isn't about consentual sex between two adults

this is about PEDOPHILA

anybody who tries to equate consentual sex with a CRIMINAL ACT OF SEXUAL PREDETATION ON CHILDREN is a troll, case closed

Bill Clinton committed NO CRIMES

foley is guilty of the same sexual predator laws that he was trusted to create

kinda hard to be classy when your opponents are in the gutter and continue to cover themselves with shit

if you are willing to take a dispicable position on PEDOPHILIA, I'm willing to tell you what a dispicable person you are

I care about truth and honesty, and I especially care about protecting children

anybody who is willing to support a PEDOPHILE, or make false comparisons about PEDOPHILIA is a dispicable person

jodi wants to use foley's PEDOPHILIA for political gain

what's classy about that ???


Once again, I think you're conflating the criminal act of preying on children and the criminal act of covering up another crime.

Foley may have broken the laws he wrote designed to keep children free from this kind of hazard. He (and four other known Republicans) are guilty of that.

But the Republican party may be guilty of a criminal cover-up. They may have knowingly made it possible for Foley to continue his predation. If they did, they too are criminally liable.

Now I'd be happy to compare how many Democrats and how many Republicans got laid last month. But that's not the question at hand. The question at hand is, what kind of criminal conspiracies are Republicans willing to engage in to avoid accountability for their actions. Scooter Libby covering up Dick's role in outing a spy, Mehlman's role in covering up Abramoff's role in bribery, House leadership's attempt to softpedal up DeLay's transgressions, NH Republicans attempts to cover up their phone crime. I could go on and on and on. The point is, it's not a question of which party is getting laid or not (though there is an emerging pattern of 65 GOP child predators). The question is which party has a history of covering up crime. And right now it's hard to find any Republicans who are innocent in this regard.

kinda hard to be classy when your opponents are in the gutter

yet that's what you're going to have to do.

it is hard to lose the moral high ground when arguing against someone who's defending a child molester -- but in some comments above, you have come close. In my eyes, telling Jodi to "go blow Clinton" is over the line. I am not ok with the use of sex as a weapon, against children, women, men or even Republicans. In the rest of your comments, you concisely demolish her points -- but when you go after her personally and unnecessarily like that, you lose me. I thought you should know.

Sorry. That should say 5 GOP predators.

This is becoming an ugly picture of a Leadership so arrogantly certain of its power that it chose not to get this out of the way last year or last spring and run a clean candidate. No, they were so resolutely certain of their control that they didn't even bother to get their stories straight. I believe Foley was also involved in the Marianas deal with DeLay...where the Chinese labor sweatshops, sex slave market popped up. I'm just trying to comprehend the level of arrogance with this leadership that they were aware of a member, in the leadership ranks for God's sake, who brought to the party in an election year illegal and immoral behavior and they chose to risk not only Foley getting caught but damage to the Party as a whole. Those were really big stakes. And for what? All I can come up with is again, Just Because They Could.

but when you go after her personally and unnecessarily like that, you lose me. I thought you should know.

it's all personal to me

mentioning Clinton in the face of every repuglican disaster seems to be jodi's modus operandi around here

in that case, I suspect jodi suffers from the same problem foley has

looks like a "love-hate" relationship to me

foley worked out his own self loathing by becoming a leader of the anti-pedophile legislators while engaging in pedophilia

jodi should work out her "love-hate relationship with Bill in the same manner

then she could just be a dispicable person, and not an enabler of pedophilia

Jodi, a story like this, about the failure of Hastert and Boehner to properly supervise Foley, has narrative drive and terrific metaphorical value. I agree with you about Iraq as the primary issue, but this issue reminds me of DeadEye shooting Harry in the face. It's a headline grabbing metaphor for how bad they govern.

Jodi, i think it is good you are here offering a differing opinion.. no one thinks Foley's crimes mean all republicans are pedophiles.. however the republican party has worked hard are suggesting it is the party to vote for if you are a christian... unfortunately some christians have bought into that idea.. now what are they to think?? i think it is a prime example of the type of hypocrisy that is rampant in politics, but in this republican party in power at present... Foleys actions tell the lie to the gop being the party for christians to flock to.

"'Im kind of fond of the "Predator Party." Kind of fits a lot of their other MOs, too."

The only thing wrong with "Predator Party" is that they might think it's, well, kool.

fair notice to all tnh readers:

from freepatriot:

I am not a nice person. I do not avoid saying something just because the remark might cause the targeted person embarrassment or distress. If something needs to be said, I'm gonna say it. I don't care about your feelings. Uncovering the truth is my only concern

in the recent scandal involving mark foley being charged with pedophilia, some people have tried to turn the discussion to Bill Clinton's penis. If these people want to discuss Bill's penis so bad, I'm willing to discuss Bill's penis. But I'm not gonna cooperate with your attempted smears. Instead I will discuss how you are so obsessed with Bill Clinton's penis that you yourself have become a moral cripple

If you equate every repuglican scandal with Bill Clinton's penis, I think it obvious that you are obsessed with Bill Clinton's penis so much that you have lost all moral clarity, and I'm mean enough to say that to your face

If you do not want me discussing your fetish with Bill Clinton's penis, please do not introduce Bill Clinton's penis into unrelated topics

if you want to discuss Bill Clinton's penis in unrelated topics, get ready for me to do a little psychoanalysis on your unhealthy and disgusting fixation

anybody who equates any repuglican scandal to Bill Clinton's penis should themselves become the topic of conversation around here. We should speculate on the possibility that Bill Clinton's penis has mystical powers, as evidenced by the abnormal behavior of the penis worshipers. Perhaps jodi and others can overcome their sick and pathetic fixation on presidential peni

if you don't want me talking about your sick and disgusting fixation with Bill Clinton's DICK, then STOP MENTIONING BILL CLINTON'S DICK

what say everybody ???


i would say freepatriot has a fixation, and it is easy to spot from his last post..


I thought it was truly offensive that you referred to it as "gay sex". It wasn't gay sex. It was a crime. I couldn't understand why you would focus on "gay" instead of the crime and the cover up. I work with survivors of sexual abuse and your words were extremely invalidating for gay folks, and victims. Hurtful. My honest thought was that the only folks I know that have such an insensitivity to the victims of abuse are ones who have been victims, raised by victims, or are perpetrators. My true hope was that I had misunderstood your position. If you fit into one of the above categories, my heart is with you, you might want to work on validating the pain instead of deflecting it.

You ask a good question about reporting it. If for instance, a crime was committed, and Frist knew and didn't report it to the proper authorities, he would lose his medical license (which he lost anyway, did he ever get it back??)

I apologize if you thought I was trying to attack you. It wasn't meant as an attack on you but on your message and an observation about when people minimize abuse (and that's what you were doing when you put the word "gay" into the discussion). I probably shouldn't have gone there but my thought was that if you fit one of those categories I could extend an olive branch..."he knows not what he does." But I put one out there anyway, cause I can't imagine the courage it takes to keep coming back. I have to admire that.

Actually, I believe the Leadership of the House -- and we can include the Senate here too -- can be indicted for just the same sort of charges many Bishops and Archbishops have faced in recent years -- and if the pages who were harrassed want to explore civil law, I suspect they could prevail.

The Congressional Page program is actually a private high school, operated for Congress. The Students are all selected by sitting members. The costs of the program are paid out of House operating accounts. Under DC Law, Federal Law, and most state laws, anyone having a relationship with a school is a mandated reporter, (along with medical personnel, therapists, etc.,) and thus the House is effectively a 435 member Board of Education, with a committee, appointed by the Speaker, and approved by the body, to oversee the operation of the school. It is a crime to fail to report to the proper police, child abuse officers, or prosecutor suspicion of precisely this kind of offense if a person is a mandated reporter -- something Bishops have found out in recent years is a case where Civil and Criminal law trump Canon Law. In fact just yesterday when this was breaking CNN was running the crawl that the LA Archdiocese was nearly finished with negotiations on a raft of cases, and the cost is going to be about 60 Million Dollars.

DC is a mandated reporting entity, in fact they strengthened their laws during the Church Crisis. I believe they also lengthened the statute of limitations for bringing civil action. Hastert and the rest of the leadership stand in exactly the same relationship as Bishops and Religious Superiors do. Essentially because they operate a school they are mandated reporters.

Mandated Reporting laws were put in place for precisely this sort of situation -- where there are costs associated with an objective investigation, and if necessary, prosecution. All too many abuse cases are swept under the rug because of the embarassment as to who is involved, (Not holy Father Jones you know -- not the Leadership of the House of Representatives!!). Let's see how long it takes for the MSM to understand the law and start asking about manditory reporting.

Another point. One of the pieces of the old "Contract with America" from 1994 had to do with requiring congress to live under the same laws as everyone else. I think this one falls right into that old contract.

Another key issue here is what we have actually learned from all the public difficulties of the Catholic Church regarding the consequences of Sexual Abuse of teens. The problems may not be evident at the time of abuse -- they surface years later. In fact the one factor perpetrators seem to have in common is that they themselves were abused by a powerful figure as children. This was also a common characteristic of the first large universe studied by Johns Hopkins. Victims have a rather high incidence of suicide, drinking and drug abuse problems, lower educational achievement, and difficulting establishing adult attachments. Specialized therapy can help avoid many of these problems if it is introduced early -- which is why you see so many of the church cases settled with a combination of money and therapy payments.

Great post, Sara.

Because I am a high school counselor, I am a mandatory reporter. I don't even think twice about it, I report. The next step is up to the police, not me. I can't believe that the house members involved did not realize that they are mandatory reporters. It amazes me that they make these laws then break them.

Thank God that someone got the story out. It's obvious our Congress runs roughshod over our laws just like the president does.

The following are quotes from text above.

"gay sex"
-- hauksdottir

"gay tendencies"

"gay" (5 times)
-- Katie Jensen

Katie, you seem like a reasonable person, but you are confused on some facts. And you will probably be a really reasonable person when you get them straight.

I have not used the word "g__" that you said I used. I have avoided saying it even now except for the quotes. If you search the text above you will see that with certainity! That is the beauty of a search. You can have certainity. And by the way I don't have the ability to edit the text once it is entered.

If people don't know how to search on the text, just go to the EDIT drop down tab at the top of your browser and drop the tab menu and select FIND. Use that. The only thing to watch for is you can move to the end of the page and may have to then reverse the search.


Ok, I have looked at the news writeups in the usual important places, and seen what they are saying is the sequence of events.

Some of the leadership had notification that a page had complained about Foley essentially asking for a picture after Katrina. The page was upset and notified someone in the House (maybe Anderson) His parents seemed to intervene (I don't know how) and said let it drop. The notified leadership (not everyone) despite the parents saying drop it, went to speak to Foley and said not to have contact with the boy anymore. That no matter what the reason, it could look bad. At this point the really bad stuff was still not shown.

That explains the so called big time lag. Once the bad stuff came out and it came out in the paper, not some notice to the Leadership, Foley resigned, and I assume went home to put his affairs in order. And prepare his body for burial!
God, his poor family.

Now I will say this on a personal note. I will only change one major item and slightly modify a couple of others but not the essence. I would not want this to get back on anyone.

I had a classmate in high school. She was not in the same grade, but I knew her from sports ever since Jr High. She ended up going to law school, and got a job in a prosecutors office. She married a wonderful man that was a Dentist. They were happily married for about 4 or 5 years, and then it came out that he had been soliciting young male patients for sex, and having meetings with them in cars, in motels, and even at his and my friends home.


My friend had her choice of many men. How this monster got by, how he fooled her, fooled his associates, how he fooled his family, is just amazing and sickening. You don't know who to trust.

The point is that sex criminals can be anybody. Can fool anybody.

But you all (maybe) have missed my main point about the "tarbaby" effect. What a lot of Democrats accept, endorse, embrace is not so well accepted by a lot of Americans. And this should be a consideration as you try to engage and sway a lot of people that aren't dyed in the wool Democrats. You attack Republicans as sex criminals in general then you open a door. You figuratively get stuck to the tarbaby, and can't get lose.
Thus far, and tomorrow's paper may bring new info, it seems to me that the R. leadership may be fine with their procedures dealing with what they knew, what the parents wanted them to know. That email was [Not blatant.]

The one I refer to was something about how are you after Katrina, how about sending me a picture of you.
That is kind of dumb and certainly one might wonder, but then the parents threw cold water on a further inquiry.

Should the first kids parents be brought up on charges of neglect? I don't have enough data yet.

Ohio Blue,

1) are they mandatory reporters.
2) Why?

3) And what is the threshold? Would that first email requesting a picture exceed your threshold if the parents say "drop it." Further, perhaps the parents said, hey don't worry, our kid is a over hysterical or something.

I am curious.

I know that if a teacher sees a bruise, and the kid says they fell they don't call the police. Now if there are a long series of bruises, welts, cuts, broken limbs, or other instances that aren't reasonable, the teacher is supposed to report it.
But there has to be a threshold or the teachers would be inspecting the children every morning and sending in what my dad would call a "daily report" that then other people would have to jump on.

I have a younger brother, and though dad was a doctor, he was away a lot, and mom would take my brother to a doctor in town. The doctor knew her and dad, but still when my brother came in one day, with several bad bruises on his legs and a few other places, the doctor started quizing her, about when they had happened. Did they happen when he was alone, when he was with someone. At first she didn't understand, then she realized that he suspected someone was beating her son, and maybe it was her. As she explained things, little M* (about 8 or 9) who was being ignored now as the adults talked about him, jumped off the examining table rolling across the floor, jumped up grinning and said "did you see that." The doctor said as he wrote something "oh, a very very active child."

My mother was quite relieved, but still upset that the doctor had suspected her of something, eventhough she knew it was a good thing generally.

Oh, I am embarassed. I guess I am getting tired. Went out earlier, just haven't gone to bed, was suppose to do a draft, but wanted to relax a bit, and skipped the draft.

I see Sara's post.

I guess the question then is when did all this happen, and how if the parents intervened does that leave the leadership with less than a "smokin' gun." That first email isn't a "smokin' gun."


I'm quite capable of following your arguments from one thread to another:

"He is a criminal. It happens.

You are wasting your time trying to indict the entire Republican Party and indeed Conservatives in general as Peodophiles.

It will be pointed out that (unfortunately for our children) is that it was a Republican this time engaged in Gay Sex and with children.

I could be wrong but the usual impression is that Dems are most often involved in scandals like this.

Perhaps some of you number's keepers and watchers have a tally for both sides, and we can determine which party is in the lead.

In that case, what party was Michael Jackson affiliated with?

Posted by: Jodi | September 29, 2006 at 22:47"

It would seem that you are the one fixated upon the gayness of this crime, rather than the youth of the victim and the position of responsibility held by the predator.

I will repeat my statement from above, and maybe this time you will understand the priorities:

"I don't care if it was gay sex or not, but these were children being preyed upon by a filthy old man."

So far there is no mention of why the page left the program, whether he left early or finished the school year, or whether any of the other pages left early rather than be subjected to the sort of dialogue in those IMs. Did Foley ever have internet sex with his own pages, or did he always prey upon boys from other offices? If the incoming class was warned about Foley, how official was that warning? Are all the pages boys? Were only the boys warned? Were all the boys warned? How many years has this been going on? Apparently the GOP has secured his office... did he use government time and equipment for his wanking off? Does he have a government-issued laptop at home? Portable hard-drive?

Since the "investigators" never bothered to read the emails, and never asked about IMs, it is apparent that they are exercising the same lackadasical "oversight" they perform on drugged-out athletes, illegal invasions, no-bid contracts, and national security.

Do we really trust them to govern? Or do we work to turn the old farts out to pasture, and their muck with them?

This scandal is part and parcel of the whole sleazy affair: power corrupts, and this present Administration has grabbed unbelievable powers, with commensurate corruption. Look at the latter days of the Roman Empire for an appropriate comparison. The major difference is that the emperors believed they were divine... and Bush thinks he is only God's right hand and trusted messenger. What good was the Roman Senate, when a horse could be sworn into office? What use is our Congress when goats chair the committees?


Re a comment above, I don't think Mr. Foley's predelictions towards seducing boys derives from the Republican Party's general tendency to demonize and repress gay sexuality. Not that I'm defending the Republicans mind you--they're utter hypocrites on many fronts. But I think Mr. Foley simply developed a taste for seducing boys. Probably because he was seduced as a boy. Norman Mailer once made a lot of sensible comments about sex and guilt (tho in a hetero context). Mind you, it could well be that Foley had typical repressive Republican and Catholic parents. In which case the comment sorta works in the end.

As far as the straight ahead politics and morality of this, go read Christy Hardin-Smith http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/09/30/putting-party-interests-over-child-safety-is-not-acceptable/#more-4744

Nope, you can't say that all republicans are child molesters, however, just as potheads trend toward one and other and feel safe with each other so do pedaphiles find comfort with others like them. Even if they never discuss their predilection there are commonalities in humor, in movie preferences, in policitical biases that bring them together. One characteristic of human behavior is the propensity to project. Any one who has ever been married or in an intimate relationship knows we all do it. We project about our secrets, our unconsious judgments about ourselves. The old adage, "thou protests too much," fits here.

As we all know, there is no harm to homosexual relationships. In fact there are facts that suggest that homosexuality was sent by God to help us humans deal with over population. It has existed in every culture since the beginnning of time. Many cultures celebrated it, such as some American indian tribes who saw gay members as special with gifts for seeing both sides of marital and relationship problems.

The old testament clearly says not to eat ham, but most of us disregard that rule and eat ham. We all know that today, the decision would be symbolic but in the old days it was a safety issue. Since we all pick and choose, yes, even the evangelicals pick and choose, because most eat ham, then we can also pick and choose about homosexuality. When populating the earth was important and babies were dying as fast as they were being born, then heterosexual sex would have been important for our species. Today, as we become over populated, gay relationships allow us to love, they allow us to touch that relationship love that God gives us, that we all need without causing a need for birth control or otherwise. It allows relationships that do not produce offspring.

The universe (and I believe God) smiles on this behavior. If you can give me one fact that says homosexuality harms our culture or this earth, let me hear it.

Having sex with children has many negative consequences for society. I can name them. Promiscuity has negative consequences for society. Over population has tremendous consequences for society. God not only talks to us throught he bible but also through science, through the universe, through nature.

Now, that's my position, and unless God speaks to me again about this, I am sticking to it.

Actually the vast majority -- somewhere in the low 90 percent of male pedophiles are attracted to females. (Yes there are female pedophiles, but they are quite rare.) That number is based on an interesting Johns Hopkins effort to kick start collecting and classifying case studies in the early 90's. So little work had been done, and it was needed.

As I understand the comprehension at the time, the vast majority of pedophiles attracted primarly to male children or teens -- the diagnosis was arrested development of adult sexual identity. One reason this was so common among Roman Catholic Priests was because of the long practice of putting boys at about age 12 to 14 into Minor Seminaries, a totally sexually segregated environment, that produced physically adult men who had a very immature (pre-teen) sexual identity. Most US Minor Seminaries were closed in the late 60's and 70's, but the impact of this kind of socialization remained well into this century. More Priest Pedophiles came out of this Minor Seminary group than later Vocations -- so those trying to understand it all are looking at this carefully. This is obviously not the only cause -- but it is something to consider as you arrange what you think valid analysis of the issues here.

The Johns Hopkins study -- and admittedly it was early, found that one clear difference between RC Priests and Protestant Ministers was that Protestants got in trouble with affairs both with adult males and females much more frequently than with teens or children. Rabbi's (small sample) more or less followed the RC Priest pattern. (Attracted to same sex children). These clearly are not really gay identities -- they are immature relationships.

But what we must understand clearly is that any sort of sexual relationship between someone understood as "powerful" and a minor is exploitative. Doesn't matter whether the perp is a "stand in for God" or a respected political authority -- or as one U of Minnesota study found back in the 70's -- something like 40% of women seeking advanced degrees had relations with or were propositioned by a Prof on their committee or in a position to determine their academic fate. (That was a study submitted as evidence in a critical federal case on gender equity in Science, the Rajander case.)

Power and Sex afterall always are somewhat related in various ways -- but the problem is when children -- minors who have not yet established their own sexual identity are manipulated into relationships. That's Foley's problem, and it is also the problem of those who failed to respond to the children. When a former page sends an E-Mail back to a congressperson or a staffer with sick sick sick attached and nothing is done, that is the critical failure.

>>Since the "investigators" never bothered to read the emails, and never asked about IMs, it is apparent that they are exercising the same lackadasical "oversight" they perform on drugged-out athletes, illegal invasions, no-bid contracts, and national security.<<

same could be said of 'suspected terrorists' that are locked up at secret prisons, gitmo and whereever else this admin is sending/keeping them... are they really 'terrorists' or just suspected 'terrorists'... too bad they weren't able to suspect a bit more on foley, instead of protecting their own asses.

that the parents of the page wanted the issue shut down speaks volumes on them... if a criminal act was commited, they would prefer it not become an issue i suppose and the republican party was okay with that too.... it is all very creepy.

Sara, I have too much respect for your writing to come out and disagree with you. I would offer, however, that my understanding of pedophilia is that their victims are "pre-pubescent." As such, my understanding has always been that gender is not relevant to them, they want victims who have not yet reached puberty.


Well said and what a great explanation of exactly what pedaphilia is. It is the power differential that is very important here, and that pedaphiles are attracted to the young or the teen. It's my understanding that there are some differences in those who are attracted to pre-pubscent, and those who are attracted to the adolescent?? Anyway. The point you make about mandatory reporting is an important one. I had no idea how that might apply to congressmen or senators but clearly with such positions of power there should be some kind of application here. I think the adult male to teen female thing is extremely common and still pathology. It's just often ignored. I think about how my husband actually gets disgusted by an older man oogling a teenager. He says out loud "that's just wrong, she's just a girl." I think that society has some how accepted this attraction as "normal" but in fact, it related to that "immature relationship" and the "power differential" as well. I was thinking of the studies that showed that teen pregnancies were often not the result of two equal aged teens but more often the result of a relationship with men who were over the age of 21. In my experience this coerced sex between older men and younger girls also fits. This was an issue for Clinton and without a doubt shows us how his domestic violence and alcoholic father background affected his maturity. As it does for many young boys. (we just don't treat it because they are less likely to look sick and depressed and more likely to look anti social...or in clinton's case totally normal...like one of the guys.) We'll get there someday, but in the meantime, without a bunch of judgments...the cover up is a big social problem. The crime is a big social problem. This problem has to do with the fact that we do not value the human child. We speak it but our behavior belies it.

As I pointed out elsewhere, it is somewhat strange that someone was logging the Foley IMs. Unless an IM session is logged--that is, saved to disk--it vanishes when the IM session ends. That the IM sessions were logged suggests to me that somebody--or somebodies--had "it in" for Foley.

BTW, unlike emails, with IM it is very easy for a user to block another user. That is another reason that I wonder whether someone was out to get Foley--all the users (the former pages) would have had to do was to add him to their block list.

raj, Foley was their "supervisor."

Actually, the kid did exactly what we should do. He told his parents. That's what we tell all children to do.

Hey all, I just read on a post on FDL that Hastert was a football coach and teacher prior to his bid on congress. Mandatory reporter. He should have known. That's bad, very bad.


The story originated at Stop Sex Predators. See here.

Well, hopefully everyone at the forum has got their bearings and is calmed down a bit now.

It is interesting. I was defending myself above from what some think I said or from what someone read someone else saying I said. That is always a problem. The actual facts as opposed to popular and worse wishful feelings.

That is what I in part do for a living. I separate the truth from wishful thinking, both technically and of course with people, because the technology doesn't lie all by itself.

It appears (just a synthesis) that Hastert stayed at arms length from this. Letting his underlings look into it and handle it. Anyone of us does that everyday. We have people that are supposed to keep a handle on things. Sometimes though we have to handle those people.

And I will reiterate my basic thought above that from what I have seen the really bad stuff wasn't known until this story broke, and then everyone reacted properly.

Now there will be arguments that someone should have reacted quicker upon the little that was known and kicked the rocks over and investigated it. We will have to wait and see.

As far as the first kid doing the right thing and telling his parents, I am not so sure about that. If he did then why didn't the parents report this to the sheriff. There seems to be real negligence there. My thought is that the parents didn't know the full extent of what was going on.

I know my dad or brothers would have gone and beat Foley to a pulp.

Jodi, thanks for coming back. When I look at Hastert's responsibility here I would counter his argument/defense of "not seeing the specific emails or IM's so he wasn't truly in the loop and thus it is understandable that he took no direct action" (not a quote) to remind him that as Speaker his leadership sets the tone for his staffers and members; this was under his roof and he is accountable for what happens under that roof. Ignorance may be an excuse but ignorance doesn't deflect that people under him gleaned from his attitude that it was better to manage this politically than to protect these youngsters who were arguably under the protective wing of Hastert. As strange as it sounds, I'm reminded of Ron Suskind's Cheney quote of the 2% solution - in this case if there was only a 2% chance that Foley acted even "overly friendly" towards a Page, Hastert bore the responsibility of protecting not only that Page but the reputation of the House of Congress as a house that respects law.

If I were a parent I don't know that I would report it, without careful thought. And once again, I work in this field helping people bring their cases to court when appropiate. However, as a parent I am not certain that I would want my child subjected to an investigation. While we all might think "it's the right thing to do". There are valid reasons for not doing that. It subjects the child to excruciating interviews about a subject that any normal teen male would not want to talk about. There there is the potential of his name becoming public. There is also the potential of being subjected to a republican smear job. As we have seen and heard countless reports, of people being smeared if they oppose the Bush regime. My God they outted a cia agent, would I trust them with the life of my child?? No, not under these circumstances. Jodi, your attempt to blame the parents is another Bushism. It's just an attempt to (let's try my lesson again and see if anyone else is gathering the facts along with me!!) minimize, deny and blame. This is something that all perpetrators and their proxies, do. Be very careful here Jodi.

The only answers that are acceptable are that a full scale investigation is needed. If I were the parents of a child in a similar spot and I am not certain what I would do, but I know that I would think very carefully about all the alternatives.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad