The Beat

The House Republican Leadership Scandal

posted by John Nichols on 10/03/2006 @ 2:25pm

The Mark Foley Scandal is over. The Florida Republican congressman who sent "Do I make you horny?" messages to teenage pages has resigned his seat and gone into rehab. He needed help and, now, he's getting it. There will be a few more salacious revelations--like today's report that the congressman was such a multi-tasker that he balanced the sending of racy instant messages with his duty to show up for floor votes -- and perhaps some legal playout to this sad tale. But Foley's political journey is finished.

The Republican Congressional Leadership Scandal is most definitely not over. House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Illinois, House Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, House Republican Congressional Campaign Committee chair Tom Reynolds, R-New York, and other leaders of the GOP caucus who knew about the Foley problem and did little or nothing to deal with it, have been exposed for what they are: Political animals who care about nothing--absolutely nothing--except maintaining power.

How determined were these key Republicans to keep their grip on Congress in what has turned into an exceptionally troublesome election year for the party? On Monday, it was revealed that, as recently as last week, an aide to Reynolds tried to get ABC News investigative reporter Brian Ross, who broke the Foley story, to kill it. In return for joining the cover-up, Ross was offered an exclusive on what the GOP leaders had hoped would be a neatly-wrapped, relatively uncontroversial story of Foley's decision to step down "for personal reasons." According to Ross, "I said we're not making any deals."

The fact of the last-minute attempt to cut those deals gives a painfully accurate reading of the "moral values" and the political priorities of the Republican leadership circle.

That reality does not make the Republicans particularly worse than the Democrats, who are certainly not above clawing for power and practicing the politics of "victory at any cost." But, in two meaningful senses, the leaders of the Grand Old Party are distinguished from the leaders of the not particularly grand opposition party:

1. The Republicans are in charge. Hastert, Boehner, Reynolds and their compatriots and co-conspirators run the Congress. In fact, they have run things more tightly than any majority in decades. As such, this particular scandal, cannot be blamed on others. Republicans own the House, they set the rules, they determine what is acceptable and what is unacceptable. They have all the power, and their obvious lack of concern for anything except maintaining that power is now exposed.

2. The Republicans have secured and maintained that power--which is used almost exclusively to enrich their wealthy political allies, contributors and supporters--by convincing millions of working-class Americans who are sincerely socially conservative to vote against their class interests in order to satisfy their moral interests. Suddenly, the dubious political construct on which the modern Republican Party has stood has been exposed. Social conservatives have been alerted to the fact that morality has never been a high priority of the corporate "conservatives" who call the shots in the Congressional leadership of what they thought was God's Own Party.

That news comes at a time when Republicans, already battered by President Bush's dwindling approval ratings and the Abramoff lobbying scandal, are scrambling to maintain control of the House. The timing for the GOP really could not be worse, not because of the scandal's potential to cause social conservatives to vote for Democrats but because of the potential that it will cause so-called "moral-values" voters to turn away from the political process. Few political realities are more certain than this: If social conservatives don't turn out on election day, Republicans don't win.

Even the usually hapless Democrats have recognized the opening and are beginning to exploit it. Democratic candidates are calling on Republican House members to renounce Hastert and Boehner, to give back money not just from Foley's political action committee but from those of the Republican leaders, and--in the last few hours--to demand Hastert's resignation. In a key Pennsylvania House race, Chris Carney, the Democratic challenger to scandal-plagued Republican Don Sherwood, called on the incumbent to cancel scheduled fundraising events with GOP House leaders. "Sherwood should immediately cancel his upcoming fundraisers with Hastert and Boehner," argued Carney. "Don Sherwood has already brought Washington's values back to the district, now he wants to bring a depraved cover-up home."

The reach of this issue is evident even beyond congressional races; in Wisconsin, where Republican Congressman Mark Green is challenging Democratic Governor Jim Doyle, the Doyle campaign is telling reporters: "It is past time for Congressman Green to display some real leadership and add his voice to the growing chorus of voices calling for Speaker Hastert to resign."

This is an incredibly volatile moment, so volatile that the Republicans may be inclined to sacrifice one of their own in order to deflect attention from the broader crisis of confidence. The party cannot afford to have its social conservative base vote suppressed by disgust, or even confusion, over Hastert's actions--and inactions.

Already, the conservative Washington Times, an influential voice in Republican circles, has called for Hastert's immediate resignation. "House Speaker Dennis Hastert must do the only right thing, and resign his speakership at once," the newspaper's editors wrote Tuesday morning. Conservative talk-radio hosts, including Michael Reagan, the son of the former president, have been similarly tough on the leadership.

How seriously are top Republican taking the demands for a house cleaning? Seriously enough to begin lobbing bombs at one another.

In an interview with radio station WLW in Cincinnati, Boehner was pointing the finger of blame at Hastert. "[It's] in his corner. It's his responsibility," the Number 2 Republican in the House said. "The Clerk of the House, who runs the page program, the page board, all report to the speaker, and I believed it had been dealt with."

A few hours later, Boehner seemed to be backtracking--as several members of the leadership have after attempting to deflect fallout from the scandal. The majority leader issued a statement claiming that "no one in the leadership, including Speaker Hastert, had any knowledge of the warped and sexually explicit instant messages."

That is, of course, a lie. But it is a necessary lie, as all evidence suggests that Boehner was at least as fully informed of the details of the sexually explicit communications as was Hastert in the months before they became public. Thus, while many conservative activists might be willing to sacrifice Hastert --perhaps the most expendable Speaker of the House in history -- there is little reason to believe that doing so would make this House Republican Leadership Scandal go away.

Comments (301)

  1. "Even the usually hapless Democrats have recognized the opening and are beginning to exploit it"

    "exploit it"?!?!??! I thought it wasn't partisan?

    LOL!

    Posted by Mask at 10/03/2006 @ 2:21pm

  2. And I don't get this "logic"...

    "Social conservatives have been alerted to the fact that morality has never been a high priority of the corporate "conservatives" who call the shots in the Congressional leadership of what they thought was God's Own Party."

    So they're going to vote for the Party they think wants "fags to marry" and "kills babies"?!?!? Or let them win, by not showing up in 5 weeks?

    Dems will likely take the House, but not on "social conservative" votes!

    Posted by Mask at 10/03/2006 @ 2:24pm

  3. oh brother, the media are like vultures with this.

    has anyone cared to write about either of these two issues:

    *how young congressional pages might actually fear GOP retaliation if they speak out?

    *why it's important NOT to insult foley for what he did? we should feel compassion for foley, more than anything. it's sad that he hasn't ever felt comfortable enough to 'come out'---being a republican it must be sad.

    the right wing pundits who keep saying that the GOP leadership didn't come out with this earlier for fear that they would look like gay-bashers are crazy. since when has the GOP feared this? in addition, the right wingers keep saying, "well, tolerance and diversity led to this. we're in a state of moral decay. " baloney! it's NOT ENOUGH tolerance that caused this: foley should have felt normal being gay, and not keeping it hidden like this. that's the real problem....

    Posted by darladoon at 10/03/2006 @ 2:24pm

  4. Posted by DARLADOON 10/03/2006 @ 2:24pm

    from "Why Capitol Pages Fear Retaliation"

    "It now appears that one of the chief reasons why Foley's e-mails remained secret for so long - and why some former pages still won't speak publicly - is that they recognize that divulging what Foley did to them could kill their hopes for future careers in politics."

    http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/100306M.shtml

    Posted by nathanhale at 10/03/2006 @ 2:57pm

  5. *why it's important NOT to insult foley for what he did? we should feel compassion for foley, more than anything. it's sad that he hasn't ever felt comfortable enough to 'come out'---being a republican it must be sad."

    Posted by DARLADOON 10/03/2006 @ 2:24pm

    There ya go....DD and Mr Nichols on the same page. If Foley had come out of the closet, he wouldn't have hit on teenagers.

    Oh and you guys calling Foley names....DARLA says stop it!

    Posted by Mask at 10/03/2006 @ 2:58pm

  6. Dardaloon - How can Foley feel comfortable being gay when his party's leadership and most of his party's membership don't treat gay people like equals?

    By and large, this country does not accept gay people as normal. Most of the country believes gay people are mentally and/or physically deviant - and I think there are two sources to blame.

    #1 - people themselves. I think most people, liberal and conservative alike, are simply grossed out by the sight of gay people being affectionate. The sight of two men or two women simply kissing and holding hands gives lots of people a sick feeling to their stomachs (I'm not talking about the women in porno who pander to the sexual impulses and desires of men). I can't tell you the number of friends I have who consider themselves liberal but who are anything but when it comes to gay marriage and gay rights in general.

    #2 - religious dogma seems to fuel that gut feeling many people have of being disgusted by gay people.

    I don't think most liberals or conservatives are individually different on their views of gay people personally. But as a party, liberals who aren't personally comfortable with gay people can bring themselves to support gay rights. Conservatives seem to consistently turn to their interpretations of their bibles to withhold their support for equal gay rights.

    Once again in this country - I think religion is giving people the authority to turn to when they want to support their biases. I'd like to see some conservative politicians stand up and say they don't support gay rights because they are personally grossed out by gay people, instead of hiding behind "religious values." Fat chance, I know.

    Conserving the status quo is good for some areas of life - but if the status quo was always held for social issues, racial minorities and women and children would still be officially less than white men in this country. I think it will take a prolonged struggle, but gay people will be respected by the law as equals eventually. As usual, the liberals of the country have to spark that change to happen. It's just sad that the current crop of liberal leadership is constantly outwitted by their counterparts. I'm afraid the sea change may take quite some time to arrive.

    Posted by urmygyro at 10/03/2006 @ 3:01pm

  7. How can Foley feel comfortable being gay when his party's leadership and most of his party's membership don't treat gay people like equals? Posted by URMYGYRO 10/03/2006 @ 3:01pm

    What is the problem here? Foley is [apparently] a homosexual pederast. If he wanted to feel "comfortable", he could have been "getting it on" with Ken Mehlman. But, Mehlman's a grown-up.

    If Foley's "problem" was that he was a Gay Republimacacan, he could have "gone Democrat". But Foley's party problem was that only a fellow Republimacacan like Fat-Ass Denny Hastert and his allies would cover up for a pederast.

    Posted by nathanhale at 10/03/2006 @ 3:13pm

  8. Posted by DARLADOON 10/03/2006 @ 2:24pm

    If Foley had been caught with a stash of gay porn in his office and a rolodex full of 1 (900) HOT-GUYS kind of numbers, the "stuck in the closet" excuse would be absolutely appropriate and he would have my full sympathy. But...

    He chose his line of work. He chose a party in which he could never feel comfortable with his sexuality. He has worked against the freedom he and other gays and lesbians deserve. And...

    He chose to turn at least part of his after-hours attention to boys. Men? Fine, who cares. Not children. No sympathy unless he acknowledges that he has a problem beyond just alcohol. Neither one's sexual orientation nor one's overindulgence in drugs is even close to being an adequate reason to develop or act on one's lust of children.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 10/03/2006 @ 3:17pm

  9. Posted by TJBEHRENS1 10/03/2006 @ 3:17pm

    DD and John Nichols making the same point (Mr Nichols in his previous post)....that SOMEHOW being in the closet, makes you a pedophile.

    I'd LOVE to see some peer-reviewed psychiatric research to back that up.

    BTW, does that mean that in-the-closet lesbians hit on little girls?!??!?

    Posted by Mask at 10/03/2006 @ 3:25pm

  10. The bottom line is gay rights aren't much more than detainee rights in this country. The conservatives are clearly happy with that situation. The liberals, if they aren't, are too spineless and powerless to push for change.

    Posted by urmygyro at 10/03/2006 @ 3:30pm

  11. Posted by MASK 10/03/2006 @ 3:25pm

    It's as fine a time as any to talk once again about equal rights regardless of sexual orientation. But Foley is clearly not the posterboy for anyone who wants to see equality. Is the marketing campaign literally going to say, "See?! This is what happens when we don't accept each other as we are." Kind of a lot to accept in one gulp, I think. Sounds like Santorum's posterboy more than Frank's.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 10/03/2006 @ 3:35pm

  12. the only point here that's worth anything (politically) is that being a right-wing religious zealot is not an indication of ethically superior behavior. and, given the nature of the republicans, a really safe bet.

    see: limbaugh, bush's pill-head-slut-daughters, abramoff, bill "virtues" whatshisname, et al.

    Posted by dabar at 10/03/2006 @ 3:44pm

  13. How does the Blogger audience factor in the NYTimes article on John Murtha using earmarks of fellow Democrats to get votes for the Republicans and increase his own power?

    Posted by Moysh at 10/03/2006 @ 3:51pm

  14. How does the Blogger audience factor in the NYTimes article on John Murtha using earmarks of fellow Democrats to get votes for the Republicans and increase his own power?

    Posted by Moysh at 10/03/2006 @ 3:52pm

  15. Looks like Hastert got the helluva job vote of confidence from Bush. Watch out for that next bus, Denny.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 10/03/2006 @ 3:57pm

  16. Quoted from above: >>"why it's important NOT to insult foley for what he did? we should feel compassion for foley, more than anything. it's sad that he hasn't ever felt comfortable enough to 'come out'---being a republican it must be sad."

    I don't feel any compassion for Foley. I came out, it was hard, I still managed to do it without hitting on any teenagers, let alone teenagers who reported to me. On the flipside, despite being 27 at the time, I DID have to deal with a fair number of dirty old men like Foley whose conception of "same-sex love" hasn't outgrown seventh-grade fascination with anatomy.

    One of the depressing aspects of this Foley case for me is that, although being gay IS NOT the same thing as being a pederast, I think a lot of people who are unsure about their orientation, whether they are adults or not, have to put up with a gross, Foley-esque anatomy-centric welcome to the queer community. It's what I got personally. I have known some people who decided against exploring that part of themselves because they were so grossed out by comments along the same lines as Foley's. Yes, we were of-age, and there's nothing wrong with consensual adult sexuality, but still, coming out is an important decision, you have lots of serious issues in your mind about why the strong heartfelt emotions you feel for your same-sex friends are belittled, why you can't do little affectionate nonsexual things like friends can do in other countries (holding hands and cheek-kissing in particular are signs of friendship many places), etc. And you have these tender emotions on your mind and "come out" and instantly have a bunch of "out" Foley-look-alikes asking you about your erection.

    I think the whole country, regardless of political and sexual orientation, is stuck in some sort of seventh-grade rut when it comes to same-sex love. Discussing this problem would end up being a book, but consider this: The graphic detail about what Foley wanted to do to the 16-year-olds is now being gleefully expanded on in riffs on the Daily Show and so on (I'm in favor of the e-mails being public to prove Foley's guilt, but some of the graphic jokes about it seem in poor taste and probably make the victims feel even worse); meanwhile, hardly anybody knows that the same forms of nonsexual public displays of same-sex affection that gives Americans "a sick feeling in their stomach" (as correctly described by a previous writer)-- those same forms such as hand-holding and brief kisses are majority ways to express friendship in other countries and used to be in our own nation's history as well. It would be one thing if people knew this and just disagreed with the idea of revisiting this custom; but nobody knows it at all, after 10 or 15 or 20 years of "public debate" about "same-sex love," because the debate is so immature.

    dave

    Posted by davelwhite at 10/03/2006 @ 3:58pm

  17. umgyro, you're CRAZY!

    you said:

    "this country does not accept gay people as normal. Most of the country believes gay people are mentally and/or physically deviant"

    i say:

    are you saying that because people won't accept you, that you should be somebody you're not? that foley should simply REMAIN IN THE CLOSET FOR THE REST OF HIS LIFE?

    you said:

    " How can Foley feel comfortable being gay when his party's leadership and most of his party's membership don't treat gay people like equals?"

    i say:

    there are PLENTY of gays in public office, in the msm, in sports, in management. it's hard to feel anger towards foley for acting out in this way, when the wider culture despises gays so much. this is, essentially, all of our faults (well, not mine, i'm gay too). but the wider culture is, to some extent, responsible for telling gay people not to come out.

    tj,

    i agree that alcoholism is a factor to consider, as is pedophilia. but my larger point is, the environment in which foley exists is quite harsh towards gays---the GOP caucus in DC. so, what do you expect? it's not entirely fair to insult foley.....that's all i'm saying.

    Posted by darladoon at 10/03/2006 @ 4:15pm

  18. Posted by TJBEHRENS1 10/03/2006 @ 3:35pm

    Oddly, the "connection" between male homosexuality and pedophilia (outside of the usual Religious Right suspects)...is being made by John Nichols and an admitted liberal lesbian (DARLADOON).

    Both saying that Foley would have "gone for adults" if he had just come out of the closet, thereby making a causal relation between being a gay man (in or out of the closet) and hitting on minors.

    Additionally, NOW, Mr Nichols wants the "Mark Foley Scandal" to be over...and move on to the "Denny Cover-up Scandal"....yet supposedly (from Katrina vanden Heuvel's article "Failure to Protect), the idea that Dems should run on is "Repubs won't keep you safe from sexual predators/child molestors"?!?!??!

    As strange....Richard Kim, who works on gay rights issues here at "The Nation" just posted "It seems inaccurate to call Foley a child sex offender" (Richard Kim "Foley Days").

    I understand "the cover-up" as scandal...but why the odd defenses of Foley?

    Posted by Mask at 10/03/2006 @ 4:16pm

  19. not that i know this for sure, just the drivel i picked up on the tv...but the kid apparnetly was a liitle turned on by the attention. or played along...no matter. that an old pervert wants to fuck a 16 year-old should surprise only a moron. this applies to hetero/homosexuals--heteros are probably worse...

    the issue is: how to defeat the archaic and anti-democratic public policy that has been generated by the republikan proto-fascists...and the tepid cowardly response to it by the american left.

    Posted by dabar at 10/03/2006 @ 4:18pm

  20. It's an issue that touches on so many things. I've been unhappy for some time with the demonization of all so-called "sex offenders," painting anyone from someone who once downloaded a picture of a nude 14 year-old with the same brush as a genuine child rapist. It's perhaps this sensitivity that is leading to the different modes of thought on this site. Fact is, we don't even know what damage Foley's virtual conversations might have had on the objects of his desire. Toss in the power situation of senator to page a la harrassment issues, public versus private issues, political issues and it's a story that is ripe for great discussions and total bullshit at the same time.

    I'm not willing to excuse him at this point for any reason or to crucify him. He needed to leave office as do any of his superiors who knew about his contact with a page and did nothing. Beyond that, I'll wait. And hope.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 10/03/2006 @ 4:27pm

  21. Posted by DABAR 10/03/2006 @ 4:18pm

    DABAR, public policy doesn't matter....if it wasn't winning in the polls or on November 7th.

    After they win on "Foley-gate", Dems can claim it was health care, NSA spying, Iraq, or whatever.

    Posted by Mask at 10/03/2006 @ 4:39pm

  22. Posted by TJBEHRENS1 10/03/2006 @ 4:27pm

    I disagree. I think it's pretty obvious that Foley was "cruising" for teenage boys, and hence trying to do something that is both repugnant and (yes, I know...state-by-state) likely illegal.

    I know what you mean though. Being a Louis Malle fan and renting "Au revoir, les enfants" or "Atlantic City"...but also renting "Pretty Baby" (with a nude pre-pubescent Brooke Shields in it) doesn't make you a pedophile.

    But Foley obviously wasn't engaging in "harmless banter" and his targets were obvious.

    Posted by Mask at 10/03/2006 @ 4:44pm

  23. Darla -

    I completely agree with TJB's earlier post. You are probably not reading articles asking people to show compassion to Foley because he simply does not deserve it in this case.

    Is the new defense for pedophiles that not the devil, but "being forced to stay in the closet made me do it?"

    Posted by Hman23 at 10/03/2006 @ 5:11pm

  24. Posted by MASK 10/03/2006 @ 4:44pm

    Discussion getting into weird territory. If you are sure about his intentions, fine. I don't know how you know whether he was looking for sex or just feeding his fantasies, since he doesn't seem to have a record of inappropriate "touching". And, now, I feel very much like we're on the set of Dr. Phil--one of the last places I hope to be. So...I think I'm done with this phase of the discussion. (By the way, went through a huge Louis Malle phase in the '90s).

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 10/03/2006 @ 5:24pm

  25. There ya go....DD and Mr Nichols on the same page. If Foley had come out of the closet, he wouldn't have hit on teenagers.

    Posted by MASK 10/03/2006 @ 2:58pm | ignore this person

    Posted by TJBEHRENS1 10/03/2006 @ 3:17pm

    DD and John Nichols making the same point (Mr Nichols in his previous post)....that SOMEHOW being in the closet, makes you a pedophile.

    Posted by MASK 10/03/2006 @ 3:25pm | ignore this person

    Oddly, the "connection" between male homosexuality and pedophilia (outside of the usual Religious Right suspects)...is being made by John Nichols and an admitted liberal lesbian (DARLADOON).

    Both saying that Foley would have "gone for adults" if he had just come out of the closet, thereby making a causal relation between being a gay man (in or out of the closet) and hitting on minors.

    Posted by MASK 10/03/2006 @ 4:16pm | ignore this person

    Let's see, 3 different times Mask has tried to claim that 3 different people (Nichols, Darla, and TJ) have said "that SOMEHOW being in the closet, makes you a pedophile."

    Of course none of those people have said any such thing. It's yet another case of Mask putting into other peoples mouths, words that they never said.

    I do believe the common term for what Mask is doing is "lying".

    Posted by Lillian at 10/03/2006 @ 5:33pm

  26. "Is the new defense for pedophiles that not the devil, but "being forced to stay in the closet made me do it?""

    there's some merit to the argument that, because foley was deep in the closet, his inner demons flourished. think about it:

    deep in the closet + rich and powerful = disaster waiting to happen

    he clearly needs help. we should all feel compassion for someone who needs help.

    hastert et al, if they knew months ago, should have said, "hey, buddy, i love you, i care about you like a brother. you need to get some help. this is not good."

    i am not excusing him in any way. the guy quit, entered rehab, and probably now knows that his life is in ruins. why continue to drop more shit on him?

    the police will decide what's up. question is: isn't 16 years legal age in DC?

    Posted by darladoon at 10/03/2006 @ 5:43pm

  27. Darla - the man is in his fifties and he is chatting on line with teenagers. I could care less whether or not he would be convicted of statutory rape had he actually done somethihg with the kid.

    Posted by Hman23 at 10/03/2006 @ 6:04pm

  28. as for the youth thing: it's child protection hysteria. lotsa civil places with far better social circumstances for children (health, education, and general welfare) allow 16 y.olds to have sex with older people. developmentally it's not so young (least' it was not for me *WINK*) so i'm not all aflutter about his penchant for fresh meat. but:

    i am all aflutter about the shock... is it really the case that no one knows what depraved notions lurk in twisted minds of fundamentalist and proto-fascists? big effing surprise!! personality psych 101 = those who scream the loudest about the behavior of others are full of the same thoughts, and in most cases far worse than what they oppose.

    think i'm overstating it? think: lott (his hairdo and he was a cheerleader @ole miss = case closed), reed (just look at them eyeballs!), sanitorium (if you think i'm wrong here, ya better have yer gaydar repaired!!!), and all the rest of em....

    what gets me is the global hypocracy...not what one horn-dog is up to.

    Posted by dabar at 10/03/2006 @ 6:14pm

  29. Let's see, 3 different times Mask has tried to claim that 3 different people (Nichols, Darla, and TJ) have said "that SOMEHOW being in the closet, makes you a pedophile."

    Of course none of those people have said any such thing. It's yet another case of Mask putting into other peoples mouths, words that they never said.

    I do believe the common term for what Mask is doing is "lying".

    Posted by LILLIAN 10/03/2006 @ 5:33pm

    MASK has a natural home in the ignore box. I took him off temporarily but he is undoubtedly going back, and soon. His "contributions" are resoundingly stupid due to their unalloyed dishonesty. He has been trying for two days now to get someone to believe that John Nichols said something that he didn't say. He still hasn't succeeeded but when has he ever learned from experience?

    Posted by fromredbird at 10/03/2006 @ 6:18pm

  30. . . we're in a state of moral decay. " baloney! it's NOT ENOUGH tolerance that caused this: foley should have felt normal being gay, and not keeping it hidden like this. that's the real problem....

    Posted by DARLADOON 10/03/2006 @ 2:24pm

    His gayness is an issue most especially in regard to the bigoted party which he represents. His pedophilia is an issue in regard to society in general. Different issues. Both significant but in different ways.

    And, of course, the Republican Party's astounding hypocrisy is an issue related to both.

    Posted by fromredbird at 10/03/2006 @ 6:27pm

  31. This was always likely to turn into a queer witch hunt, with the Democrats finally getting to play a role they've quietly coveted for a long time - that of Queer Witch-Finder General. Being able to finally abandon the embarrassing burden of the "gay lobby" means many more conservative heartland votes, a huge gain for the relatively small financial loss of "pink" funding (which is already pulling out - a wealthy gay American colleague of mine says he will never give money to the Democrats again, and I'm sure he's not the only one).

    The real losers, unfortunately, will be the American gay community. Although many were already fairly cynical about the Democrats, it's clear now that there is no mainstream US political party that's willing to resist the temptation of wooing the homophobic majority by putting the boot into queers whenever it's politically convenient - and that's most of the time, in today's climate of paranoid sexual conservatism.

    Posted by Nikolas at 10/03/2006 @ 7:43pm

  32. Foley, the Catholic church and anyone who helped cover up this sick/twisted behavior should be held accountable.

    Nikolas, did you know that there have been many studies showing that an extremely high percentage of pedophiles are GAY?

    Posted by barry25 at 10/03/2006 @ 7:48pm

  33. Bold: Nikolas, did you know that there have been many studies showing that an extremely high percentage of pedophiles are GAY?

    This is the sort of thing we're hearing more and more of from Democrats in recent days, and there'll be much worse to come.

    Posted by Nikolas at 10/03/2006 @ 8:00pm

  34. Posted by NIKOLAS 10/03/2006 @ 8:00pm

    Bold: Nikolas, did you know that there have been many studies showing that an extremely high percentage of pedophiles are GAY?

    This is the sort of thing we're hearing more and more of from Democrats in recent days, and there'll be much worse to come.

    Democrats, Nikolas? I rather doubt that. I take it this quote was from Barry25? If so (I have him on ignore, one of the few for me but I just couldn't take the all caps rants anymore since they're both unimaginative and devoid of any rational argument) then you're not dealing with a Democrat by any means. The likelyhood that any Democrat (even our own home-grown centrist here in PA, Casey) will be repeating that line is is pretty small.

    Barry, we've already covered this at length on the "Height of Hypocrisy" thread. There are no studies that support your position except Cameron (1985) and Cameron, et al (1986), both of which have so many methodological flaws as to be entirely worthless for any purpose. If you have some new data I think we'd all like to see it, so post a link. I'll even take you off ignore to see if you come up with something.

    Posted by Stwriley at 10/03/2006 @ 8:24pm

  35. Democrats, Nikolas? I rather doubt that

    Posted by STWRILEY 10/03/2006 @ 8:24pm

    Stwriley, I don't pretend to be an expert on US politics (I'm Australian, and have only become interested in this issue as a result of conversations with American friends, who don't like what they're seeing unfolding).

    But I had a look at some Democrat internet forums yesterday and there does indeed seem to be a concerted campaign out there to have Foley characterized as a "gay pedophile". Some, it's true, are trying to play down the "gay" bit, but that's of little consequence given that the youngest boy he's supposed to have subjected to lewd banter was 16, well above the age normally associated with "pedophilia".

    According to my sources, Foley has long been known to have a liking for twinks (boys in their late teens, early 20s). If that makes him a pedophile, millions of gay men out there are pedophiles. (This would include me - I'm 44 and my partner is 25 - we met when he was 18).

    I'm not condoning Foley's advances, which seem to have been distasteful and inappropriate, and may well amount to workplace harrassment. But there's a world of difference between judging his behaviour on rational ethical grounds of that kind, and launching the "burn the perverted Republican child predator!" stuff that the Democrat propagandists are currently spewing out of every orifice.

    Posted by Nikolas at 10/03/2006 @ 8:55pm

  36. Stwriley, you really love to set yourself up for failure and embarrassment don't you? Well, son, IT'S ON! I don't have much time right now, so I'll just give you a hint of the evidence that I'll be bringin' in the next day or so, so please be a man and stay tuned for the schoolin' you're bout' to recieve: Kinsey Institue survey 1970- 565 white Gay males in San Fran. were surveyed . 25% ( yah, 25% ) of them admitted to having sex with boys under 16 while they themselves were 21 yr's old or older! Now remember brainiac, this is just the tip of the iceberg! I'm loadin' up the AMMO, so don't be like all my other bitches here, and run and hide...stand up like a man ( a heterosexual man ) and take the whoopin' you're gonna recieve! Be back in a flash! Man, this is fun!

    Posted by barry25 at 10/03/2006 @ 8:58pm

  37. Guys like Nikolas are just itchin' to get that age determination of what constitutes pedophilia knocked down a couple notches, aren't they? Hey Nikolas, I'm sure you're a card-carrying member of the ACLU, would it be fair for me to surmise that you're a member of NAMBLA too?

    Posted by barry25 at 10/03/2006 @ 9:02pm

  38. would it be fair for me to surmise that you're a member of NAMBLA too?

    Posted by BARRY25 10/03/2006 @ 9:02p

    Hey Ba

    I heard that the RNC and Nambla were going to start sharing office space.

    Or as they say out in hamsterland... one stop shopping

    Posted by Will C. at 10/03/2006 @ 9:06pm

  39. I take it this quote was from Barry25? ...(I have him on ignore, one of the few for me but I just couldn't take the all caps rants anymore since they're both unimaginative and devoid of any rational argument)

    Posted by STWRILEY 10/03/2006 @ 8:24pm

    I see what you mean :) I now have him on ignore, too.

    Posted by Nikolas at 10/03/2006 @ 9:16pm

  40. So many Republican scandals and so little time...!

    Posted by rcapp at 10/03/2006 @ 9:32pm

  41. Posted by RIO BRAVO 10/03/2006 @ 6:03pm | ignore this person

    Yet again, Rio to the Republican rescue with plenty of examples of other sex scandals from both parties - but what does that prove (other than he either has a lot of personal knowledge about sex scandals or he spent an awful lot of time researching those sex scandals)?

    Maybe I missed it (there was a ton of smut to get through), but I don't recall any of Rio's scandals involving a cover-up by the leaders of either party. Nobody will argue that there are people, both in public life and in society in general, who are immoral, unethical, or downright dangerous, but at issue here is more about the lack of "character" shown by Hastert, Boehner, et al.

    BTW - Tom Reynolds is from my neck of the woods, and it's tough to watch him squirm, trying to argue that he told Hastert, but at the same time trying to stay loyal to the "Grand Old Party."

    Posted by Turk33 at 10/03/2006 @ 10:00pm

  42. URMYGYRO , excellent post. I only have one thing I disagree with you on, "current crop of liberal leadership", I'm sorry but these are not liberals. They are Democratic leaders with a socially conservative slant. And they lack vision.

    Posted by debpete1313 at 10/03/2006 @ 10:27pm

  43. Debsgotapeter13, dem's socially conservative? Yah, maybe in the bathhouses that you frequent in San Fran-freak-o!

    Posted by barry25 at 10/03/2006 @ 11:18pm

  44. Posted by URMYGYRO 10/03/2006 @ 3:01pm

    Posted by NIKOLAS 10/03/2006 @ 7:43pm

    Are you two trying to say that a 52-yr-old stalking and attempting to seduce a 16-yr-old is not pedophilia? If you are then you are wrong and may have the problem yourself. Spare me the formal psychiatric definitions. The American people are not, one and all, psychiatrists who want to treat Foley. They are parents who want undesirable people like this kept away from their children. Look in any dictianary. A pedophile is an adult who desires and seeks sex with children. A 16-yr-old is a child and a 52-yr-old is an adult.

    Attempting to characterize this as a veiled attack against gays is thoroughly ludicrous. I guarantee you that the average American would be much more outraged if Foley had directed his disgusting attentions to a 16-yr-old girl. Your seeming inability to recognize this doesn't create any sympathy for your personal cause.

    Posted by fromredbird at 10/03/2006 @ 11:25pm

  45. Foley is just one in a long list unfortunately going back almost 35 yr. Lets add him on and get on with the business of the country. "Crow"about the downfall of this one on the right and get busy making excuses for those on the left!!!!!!!!!

    Posted by RIO BRAVO 10/03/2006 @ 6:03pm

    But Rio... the coverup. We are going to have to talk about the coverup for at least five more weeks.

    and then we get to laugh heartily everytime you hamsters bring up family values, morality, God, Bill Clinton....

    but you know what I mean.

    Posted by Will C. at 10/03/2006 @ 11:37pm

  46. Ha Ha Ha Ha

    Posted by Will C. at 10/03/2006 @ 11:37pm

  47. Foley is just one in a long list unfortunately going back almost 35 yr. Lets add him on and get on with the business of the country.

    Posted by RIO BRAVO 10/03/2006 @ 6:03pm

    Which is what, to you, weirdness- Bill Clinton's relationship with Monica Lewinsky?

    Posted by fromredbird at 10/03/2006 @ 11:52pm

  48. No, the Foley scandal isn't over.

    http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/10/03/D8KHEI3O0.html Foley Says He Was Abused by a Clergyman Oct 03 6:49 PM US/Eastern

    By BRIAN SKOLOFF Associated Press Writer

    WEST PALM BEACH, Fla.

    Disgraced former Rep. Mark Foley said through his lawyer Tuesday that he was abused by a clergyman as a teenager, but accepts full responsibility for sending salacious computer messages to teenage male pages. Attorney David Roth said Foley was molested between ages 13 and 15 by a clergyman. He declined to identify the clergyman or the church, but Foley is Roman Catholic. ****** I'd say it's just started, even of the bulk goes underground.

    The neocons, who have dictated AAmerica's foreign policy since l996 ("Clean Break", "Shaddamsein Sheik") have been composed mainly of Catholics and Jews, which were the two religo-ethinic groups fingered by Bush as soon as he was elected, before 9/11/06, as the swing group votes for '04.

    A vote which the Re-pubes won by hawking war and talking trash on Brokeback mountaineers threatening holy matrimony. Now here one of their stars pops up, comes out, however you want to put it. Along with John Mark Karr (voted Favorite Re-pube, after Terry Shiavo) and Charles Carl Roberts IV (Re-pube type, flashing back to childhood abuse).

    Nope. It's Foley, It's Foley on Dr. Phil!! Forget it Oprah Get O'Reilly & Big Bill Bennet to fill -- he was interviewing an Iraq war veteran the other day, an ex-Marine, I think, whining about liberal democrats doing talking point numbers at him while he was trying to pray, or something like that.

    Just call it the Cath-'0-Jew cabal. Then throw in a Falwell, and watch the deck fall.

    Posted by jones at 10/04/2006 @ 12:08am

  49. Posted by JONES 10/04/2006 @ 12:08am

    What the F*** are you babbling about?

    Posted by fromredbird at 10/04/2006 @ 12:16am

  50. The biggest scandal here, as I said earlier, remains the scathing, scandalous, shameless hypocrisy of any politician

    who co-chairs the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children

    and vigorously campaigns and legislates on a platform against exploitation...

    being caught exploiting someone, anyone, man, woman, or child.

    As previous posters have noted, coverups and complicity and the like are also abhorrent, and should be both aggressively investigated and prosecuted. And down the road, perhaps heads will roll - but I've learned not to hold my breath about such things over the last five years. I got tired of turning blue, hell, of being blue.

    The nexus of this tempest, I fear, may reside and die in a rather tiny teapot. Because, to date, all any of us know is what one guy has done. The rest is speculation. Sigh.

    I fear that overreaching about this incident will do exactly what other posters have already mentioned: detract from the bigger issues at hand. While admittedly, this is useful politically in disenfranchising some socially conservative voters, it will not sway many Republicans to vote for change - the swayable Republicans in the middle were never the same as the homophobic far right to begin with, nor will this incident turn them.

    Sad, but true. Let's take this one day at a time, not forget to discuss all of the other important stuff with our peers, friends, colleagues, (anyone with open minds and ears), etc., like Iraq, like torture, like truth.... like there's a shortage of topics, yeesh.

    On another note...

    ======================================

    I've told my wife a thousand times that I don't care if I'm the only person in the world who does X, I'm going to keep doing it because it makes sense to me.

    Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 10/03/2006 @ 3:57pm>

    Holy Mother of God. George W. Bush himself has joined the Nation's board under the guise of MaryBretBrad (only this time, he didn't even mention Barney - poor Barney). This explains so much!

    Weep for America, Americans, if ever

    "I don't care if I'm the only person in the world who does X, I'm going to keep doing it because it makes sense to me"

    is the majority view.

    Oh, no, oh, wait, it's too late...

    It's the President's view.

    Weep for America, Americans.

    ==============================================

    Oh, before I forget, for Mask, a specific lie:

    NEW DAWN.....for Gosh's sakes, READ THIS...

    "And you're trying to equate Japanese internment camps with questionably color-coded fear charts, vague pronouncements of collaborations between secular and fundamentalist groups (opposed to one another), the threat of "mushroom clouds", etc., and declaring "war" (an always upsetting and fear-inducing word) on a tactic to foster fear of a nebulous enemy.---Posted by NEW DAWN 09/08/2006 @ 3:03pm

    So "color charts", "pronoucements", and TALK of "war" and "threats"...

    is WORSE than ONE HUNDRED TWENTY THOUSAND people (primarily American citizens) being rounded up, taken from their homes, and herded into CPA detention camps in the desert?!?!?!?

    You SURE you want to stick with that???

    Posted by MASK 09/08/2006 @ 3:06pm

    ==============================================

    Here's the lie. I had never said one was worse than the other.

    Mask put those words in my mouth and carried the lie that I said as much for days on multiple boards.

    Mask also lies and puts words in the mouths of others:

    "Yet it stumped [Darladoon] when asked, "If 3000 dead on 9/11 are no big deal, then why do we care about the US casualties...in Iraq?"

    Posted by MASK 09/11/2006 @ 12:17am

    I replied:

    Say there, uh, liar?

    Hate to intrude.

    In the interest of full disclosure, and to prove that you are not yet again lying through your teeth about someone and putting words in their mouths again as is your habit on the Nation boards, would you mind providing evidence of Darla's quote wherein she stated that "3000 dead on 9/11 are no big deal"?

    The Nation boards and your fellow debaters would, I'm fairly certain, appreciate your honest effort in proving this claim, given that it is quite sensational, if true.

    Inquiring minds want to know. I want to know.

    Or maybe you're just lying again.

    Posted by NEW DAWN 09/11/2006 @ 8:22pm | ignore this person

    The above post has never been answered.

    Mask likes to twist what people say, to play games and stir up dust in the interest of obscuring true dialogue, and the sick, sad part is that he seems like an otherwise intelligent, thoughtful, educated fellow - but he clearly gets off on the derailment of important or productive discourse, on pissing in the pool and laughing about it:

    (From a blog debunking Cheney's claims of a significant relationship between Saddam's regime and al Qaeda)

    And like I said to NEW DAWN, I got no problem with [Corn pitching his book]....but I AM going to make fun of it and how it's ignored, then defended, by his sychophants here at the blog.

    Maybe his next article could be about Autumn....with lines like "Fall brings such clear, crisp blue skies (like the blue sky you see behind Bush, Cheney, Rummy and Condi in my new book "Hubris" with Michael Isikoff)......the leaves turn a dark red color (like the dark red color of the words "HUBRIS", in my new book)....and we dream of sitting back and enjoying a Royal Crown Cola (Speaking of "Crown", Crown Publishing just released a new book....."

    Posted by MASK 09/11/2006 @ 1:52pm

    Your sarcasm is like prose, Mask. We're all duly impressed. But, how about them Cheney lies? Any comment?

    Cheney is a liar.....okay. I kinda figured that out a while back, atleast before Nov. 2004, when I stepped into voting booth and voted for John Kerry.

    Posted by MASK 09/11/2006 @ 1:52pm

    I said it then, I'll say it again:

    All of that work, all of those posts, vilifying Corn, and Cheney gets off the hook with "Cheney is a liar.....okay", even though Cheney's lies led to continued support of a failed occupation that has cost thousands of lives.

    Corn's attempts to sell books are still "worse" to Mask (and more worth mentioning) than Cheney's lies.

    You're both lying assholes, and hypocrites, to boot.

    I take back what I said earlier, Mask -- if you should happen to find yourself on fire, please let me know. I will happily piss on you.

    Just not quite enough to put you out.

    Posted by NEW DAWN 09/11/2006 @ 1:58pm

    Now, lo and behold, here's Mask on a new thread, doing what?

    Being, as usual, counterintuitive, counterproductive, and abhorrent.

    So, Mask, I gave you examples, per your request, of two(!) specific lies, and you only asked for one. You see, my generosity for your kind knows no bounds.

    Speaking of generosity to your kind, when you spontaneously combust, don't forget to let me know. I could still help you out.

    But hurry. You make me wanna go real bad.

    Wink-wink.

    Good night, everybody.

    ND

    Posted by New Dawn at 10/04/2006 @ 12:17am

  51. DEBPETE1313 - thank you for your post. I agree with your assessment of "liberal leadership." I was being tongue-in-cheek by calling democrats "liberal."

    Posted by urmygyro at 10/04/2006 @ 12:24am

  52. Marybretbrad - Of course having six fingers doesn't make a person "behaviorally deviant." You don't choose to have six fingers, you're born that way. Since you didn't read my post carefully, allow me to re-word it for you in simpler terms: society, by a large, thinks gay people choose to be gay, and that they are making a very bad choice, one that most people wouldn't make, and that society as a whole does not want to approve. Some may even concede that being gay is not a choice, but inborn - but that's when I think most people who despise gay people (or at least despise the acts of public affection by gay people and despise the thought of sex between gay people) turn to their religion and say to themselves - "it's a sin, so it's ok for me to despise them."

    And your argument about life-long heterosexual bachelors is specious. They are given far more respect by the public at large than gay people.

    Posted by urmygyro at 10/04/2006 @ 12:36am

  53. Dardaloon - I'm quite logical and sane, more so than I'd like to be sometimes, trust me.

    you said:

    "are you saying that because people won't accept you, that you should be somebody you're not? that foley should simply REMAIN IN THE CLOSET FOR THE REST OF HIS LIFE?"

    I am not gay (and to quote Seinfeld - "not that there's anything wrong with that.") It should be obvious that I am for gay people feeling comfortable enough with society, and not so scared, that they can live openly with their sexuality, isntead of feeling like it's a burden or something to hide in most, if not all, social situations.

    you said:

    "there are PLENTY of gays in public office, in the msm, in sports, in management. it's hard to feel anger towards foley for acting out in this way, when the wider culture despises gays so much. this is, essentially, all of our faults (well, not mine, i'm gay too). but the wider culture is, to some extent, responsible for telling gay people not to come out."

    The Republican Party, and a vast majority of conservatives, don't support gay people's rights, and they purposely use people's intolerance of gay people to drive a wedge between political parties. Seems to me it's rather obvious who uses gay people for political advantage, isntead of treating them as equal citizens. Let me ask you this - has Foley come out and admitted he's a gay man? Or is he blaming mere actions on alcoholism and pedophile priests? It seems to me he's not willing to accept himself as gay.

    Posted by urmygyro at 10/04/2006 @ 12:46am

  54. The American people are not, one and all, psychiatrists who want to treat Foley. They are parents who want undesirable people like this kept away from their children

    Posted by FROMREDBIRD 10/03/2006 @ 11:25pm

    I have no doubt that most American people, like most people everywhere, are largely hostile towards any kind of sexual minority groups, especially homosexuals - even when those homosexuals ARE their own offspring.

    This is why it's important for at least some of the politicians out there to try to ensure that basic human rights are respected in regard to everyone, not just the heterosexual mob. When the Democrats climb aboard the "burn the baby-eating perverts!" bandwagon, it's not surprising that a lot of ordinary respectable citizens - who happen to be gay - start feeling unsafe.

    Posted by Nikolas at 10/04/2006 @ 01:01am

  55. Posted by NIKOLAS 10/04/2006 @ 01:01am

    You apparently insist on being vague but it appears that you are saying pedophiles are just another sexual minority group. Is that correct?

    That's like saying ax murderers are just another kind of lumberjack.

    You also are ignoring my point that the average American would be much more outraged if Foley had directed his disgusting behavior toward a 16-yr-old girl. Your singleminded determination to twist it into an imaginary anti-gay attack simply shows how insensitive and callous you are to not just the 16-yr-olds involved but all 16-yr-olds.

    Posted by fromredbird at 10/04/2006 @ 03:08am

  56. You apparently insist on being vague but it appears that you are saying pedophiles are just another sexual minority group. Is that correct?

    I'm saying that as far as most people - like you - are concerned, homosexuals and pedophiles are interchangeable categories. Which is presumably why you believe the term "pedophile" is so relevant to this issue.

    You also are ignoring my point that the average American would be much more outraged if Foley had directed his disgusting behavior toward a 16-yr-old girl.

    I'm ignoring that point because it is obvious garbage. Had the page been a girl, many people would doubtless tut-tut (although some hetero men would probably drink a toast to the 'ol boy, even if he is a Republican), but there'd be far less disgust and less of the "predatory pervert" overkill. (And had the page been a girl, people might even ask a few sensible questions - like, why are "kids" employed in this capacity, anyway? Why not employ older people?)

    Your singleminded determination to twist it into an imaginary anti-gay attack simply shows how insensitive and callous you are to not just the 16-yr-olds involved but all 16-yr-olds.

    I've described Foley's behaviour towards the pages as distasteful, offensive, inappropriate, and an example of workplace harrassment. Foley himself appears to have acknowledged these things and has resigned, apologized and expressed deep regret. So as the article says, that chapter is over.

    But the whole episode has left a deep feeling of unease amongst many gays, especially in regard to the Democrat's handling of the issue. There's bound to be a lot of fallout yet to come.

    Posted by Nikolas at 10/04/2006 @ 03:58am

  57. Fromredbird - why are you hung up on distinguishing the situation if the page had been a girl? Underage is underage.

    Posted by urmygyro at 10/04/2006 @ 07:15am

  58. Posted by NEW DAWN 10/04/2006 @ 12:17am

    I notice you didn't save what YOU posted (you just say what you CLAIM you said).

    Since you save my posts....why not show your posts as well and let everybody decide for themselves?

    (BTW, he's doing a "depends on what is 'is'" moment. He doesn't say "one is worse", he said "they not equatable", i.e. Japanese internment doesn't "equal" "Bush scaring people for 5 years with color codes". He got caught on it and has been trying verbal gymnastic ever since!)

    Posted by Mask at 10/04/2006 @ 08:56am

  59. Posted by RIO BRAVO 10/04/2006 @ 09:13am

    ...Rio Bravo, proudly standing up for the rights of homosexuals since Monday. Later today, catch his post defending Gay Marriage...

    Posted by nathanhale at 10/04/2006 @ 09:29am

  60. Posted by RIO BRAVO 10/04/2006 @ 09:13am

    Clearly you cannot read, if you could you would have read what people here actually wrote/believe. Where do you come up with this poopoo?

    Posted by crabwalk at 10/04/2006 @ 09:54am

  61. http://www.comics.com/editoons/stein/archive/stein-20060927.html

    Posted by crabwalk at 10/04/2006 @ 09:57am

  62. Posted by NATHANHALE 10/04/2006 @ 09:29am

    next Rio will tell us why the constitution matters.

    Posted by crabwalk at 10/04/2006 @ 09:59am

  63. Republican voters fear the Foley scandal threatens their party's control of government, so don't hold your breath waiting for them to do any house cleaning. For Republicans, control is the main thing, and in fact the only thing. They don't care that their party rigs elections to win, they don't care that their party lied us into war, and they don't care that their party has given Bush dictatorial powers.

    Lust for control and power is the unifying force that binds billionaires and food-stamp republicans together. Lust for control, power and dominance over others is the psychological imperative that drives all republicans, from the richest to the poorest. That irresistible craving for dominance is their defining characteristic.

    Every republican is "Ming the Merciless."

    Posted by rabblerowzer at 10/04/2006 @ 10:34am

  64. u know, it really sucks when i get so freakin busy and burned out that i cannot blabbulate here, but in the midst of my busy schedule, i had to pause here to drop a little high brow commentary until my next vacation frees me up to write more...

    HA HA HA HA HA! HO HO HO! HEE HEE HEE!

    THE NEOCON CRACKUP IS A BEAUTIFUL SIGHT TO BEHOLD!

    HA HA HA HA HA! HO HO HO! HEE HEE HEE!

    looks like hypocritical, ass covering, bought and paid for ideologues have their little perversions just like us sinners...imagine that...wow...never thought the preachers of the "holier than them" mantra were bullshitting the whole time! so much for innocence...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/04/2006 @ 10:39am

  65. Repub's now say Foley was really a dem! Are they getting cracked into uncharted waters and sinking or what?

    http://insidecable.blogsome.com/2006/10/04/oops-6/

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eat-the-press /2006/10/04/oreilly-factor-labels-_e_30927.html

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/04/2006 @ 10:58am

  66. FOX FUCKING "NEWS"!!!!!!

    As far as I can see they STILL havn't apologized for labeling Mark Foley a Democrat TWICE last night (On O'Reilly) which just happens to be the #1 talking head show!

    I cannot accept that the Network should be allowed to call itself News anymore.

    Posted by freedomplease at 10/04/2006 @ 11:35am

  67. Bubba Oh'Really? once said that if no wmd's were found in Iraq he would NEVER trust chimpy again. And you expect him to apologize for a techinical glitch?

    Fair, balanced, credible.

    As can be seen here, repubes never apologize or correct, they just deflect blame and bring up 20 year old dirt on others.

    Whatever happened to The Contract on America?

    Posted by crabwalk at 10/04/2006 @ 11:45am

  68. I'm saying that as far as most people - like you - are concerned, homosexuals and pedophiles are interchangeable categories. Which is presumably why you believe the term "pedophile" is so relevant to this issue.

    You're as immune to facts as the right-wing bigots here. The essential content of my last two or so posts has been the difference between being just gay and being a pedophile. Someone reading your last two or three posts could only reasonably conclude that you consider them interchangeable categories. Now you're pretending that you said the opposite of what you actually said. Like here:

    Posted by NIKOLAS 10/04/2006 @ 01:01am

    and here: Posted by NIKOLAS 10/03/2006 @ 8:55pm

    FRB: You also are ignoring my point that the average American would be much more outraged if Foley had directed his disgusting behavior toward a 16-yr-old girl.

    I'm ignoring that point because it is obvious garbage. Had the page been a girl, many people would doubtless tut-tut (although some hetero men would probably drink a toast to the 'ol boy, even if he is a Republican), but there'd be far less disgust and less of the "predatory pervert" overkill.

    Posted by NIKOLAS 10/04/2006 @ 03:58am

    You are completely clueless about the average human being. If 52-yr-old Foley had been sending unwanted IM's and e-mails persistently attempting to discuss a 16-yr-old girl's private parts, her underwear, and asking if she was masturbating or if what he was saying made her horny the average person would be much more outraged. A male is simply expected to be able to put up with more disgusting behavior than a female by the average person and the average person is much more protective of a young female.

    You are living in a paranoiac fantasy. There certainly is disgust at Foley for being a predatory pervert but there has not been any "overkill" bigotry toward his gayness that I have seen. If you want to read newsletters from the Christian Coalition or something like that then suit yourself but they were issuing bigoted condemnations of homosexuality long before Foley hit the news. Get a clue.

    Your attempt to disarm criticism of your ridiculously pretentious assertions with the "homophobic" implication is exceptionally dishonest.

    Posted by fromredbird at 10/04/2006 @ 11:50am

  69. BARRYIQ25, I wonder, if we took a survey of hetero males, even at this site, how many of us have had sex with a 16 year old (when we were 16 ourselves) I bet good money it is over 25%. Now I know you are only 14, so you may not have had the opportunity yet, but trust me, if you get the offer, you will jump on it. But when you turn 52, the morality changes dramatically.

    I think NAMBLA will be having a meeting at your Burger Hut, (where the Elite Meet to Eat Tasty Deep Fried Treats) you may want to sign up your very own Young Republican Log Cabin affiliate.

    Posted by crabwalk at 10/04/2006 @ 11:55am

  70. Mask continues lying and misrepresenting others... What a shocker..

    I showed all of our posts before, on another thread, Mask, and the consensus has been (as today on this very thread) was that you are a liar.

    But what the hell, I'll show 'em again.

    --------------------------------------

    Posted by NEW DAWN 10/04/2006 @ 12:17am

    I notice you didn't save what YOU posted (you just say what you CLAIM you said).

    Since you save my posts....why not show your posts as well and let everybody decide for themselves?

    (BTW, he's doing a "depends on what is 'is'" moment. He doesn't say "one is worse", he said "they not equatable", i.e. Japanese internment doesn't "equal" "Bush scaring people for 5 years with color codes". He got caught on it and has been trying verbal gymnastic ever since!)

    Posted by MASK 10/04/2006 @ 08:56am

    Not being equal is not the same as better or worse. Are apples worse than oranges, idiot?

    You're just unhappy because I didn't say what you continue trying to put in my mouth, much like your claim that everyone is saying that closeted gays must be pedophiles- no one has said that, but you keep saying they did.

    That's enough of your lying, Mask - you were lying then, and you're lying now - you've even been caught playing your own "verbal gymnastics" (almost all you ever do) on this very thread.

    Give it up, scumbag.

    I proved you said what you said, with your own words, and I didn't have to creatively edit or twist them to do it.

    And what the hell are you talking about? I just posted my own posts. Are you retarded?

    Oh, you mean the one that started it all? Hey, no problem - nothing to hide here:

    John B. -

    Name another administration that has exploited a national tragedy and the subsequent fear it caused like this one.

    That big "They all do it" brush doesn't wash here.

    Posted by NEW DAWN 09/08/2006 @ 2:45pm

    You replied:

    Sadly, as a fan of Clinton, not his "finest hour"....

    but that would be when, after the OK City bombing, he "hinted" at the idea that McVeigh (then unknown) was a product of "hate radio" (i.e. his big media nemesis then, ol' Rushbo!)

    Posted by MASK 09/08/2006 @ 2:50pm

    I said:

    Not even close to a five-year campaign of terror about terror, Mask.

    Not even a nice try.

    Posted by NEW DAWN 09/08/2006 @ 2:52pm

    Your first example shot down, you came back with:

    You ASKED about other administrations....and I gave you an example.

    Or go back to Japanese Internment in WW-2....there was little reason to fear Japanese-Americans (more than German-Americans or Italian-Americans)....but Roosevelt signed off on EO 9066.

    Posted by MASK 09/08/2006 @ 2:56pm

    And I responded again:

    I didn't ask you.

    And you know it.

    And the way you're trying to spin my point is ridiculous.

    And you know it.

    And you're trying to equate Japanese internment camps with questionably color-coded fear charts, vague pronouncements of collaborations between secular and fundamentalist groups (opposed to one another), the threat of "mushroom clouds", etc., and declaring "war" (an always upsetting and fear-inducing word) on a tactic to foster fear of a nebulous enemy.

    Again, not even a nice try.

    Let it go, Mask. Please? I was interested in John B.'s reasoned, rational response, not yours.

    And you know it.

    Posted by NEW DAWN 09/08/2006 @ 3:03pm

    And then the twisting began. Note, that to this point, I never said one or the other was better or "worse". My point (and you damned well knew it) was that your examples did not rise to the level of exploiting a national tragedy and the subsequent fear it caused like this administration has done.

    Clinton's "hinting" about hate groups and the finite internment of American Japanese (the longest of which was Tule Lake, CA - Opened May 27, 1942, Closed March 20, 1946. Peak population 18,789) did not compare, equate, or rise to the level of the five-year (and continuing) exploitation of 9/11 by this administration, including questionably color-coded fear charts, vague pronouncements of collaborations between secular and fundamentalist groups (opposed to one another), the threat of "mushroom clouds", etc., and declaring "war" (an always upsetting and fear-inducing word) on a tactic to foster fear of a nebulous enemy.

    You are a lying, manipulative, game-playing piece of shit, Mask, and we all know it. Did you see how many people leapt to your defense when I asked the entire board if you were an hoenst debating partner? None.

    Deal with it.

    Posted by New Dawn at 10/04/2006 @ 11:58am

  71. Fromredbird - why are you hung up on distinguishing the situation if the page had been a girl? Underage is underage.

    Posted by URMYGYRO 10/04/2006 @ 07:15am

    Because you and the other poster are pretending that the issue is Foley's gayness and that Democrats are whipping up a witch hunt against gays. The controversy would not be less if Foley was heterosexual and, in fact, probably would have been greater. If you want to call highlighting the logical fallacy of what you have said a "hang up" then enjoy yourself. What's next- "homophobe"?

    Posted by fromredbird at 10/04/2006 @ 11:58am

  72. "That's like saying ax murderers are just another kind of lumberjack."

    Bird, it's totally inappropriate, but that just made me spurt coffee out of my nose. :)

    Stop that.

    Posted by New Dawn at 10/04/2006 @ 12:00pm

  73. Posted by NEW DAWN 10/04/2006 @ 11:58am

    You're devoting a lot more space to MASK than he's worth. Like you said, there is already a consensus that he's a liar and a misrepresenter.

    Posted by fromredbird at 10/04/2006 @ 12:03pm

  74. Posted by NEW DAWN 10/04/2006 @ 12:00am

    Sorry about that but you can't condemn me for being vague.

    Posted by fromredbird at 10/04/2006 @ 12:07pm

  75. lumberjacks were womens underwear, press wild flowers and hang around in bars. That makes them Foleyites, not ax murderers.

    Posted by crabwalk at 10/04/2006 @ 12:08pm

  76. Bird -

    I just HATE being called a liar by a liar. One thing I don't do, anywhere in my life (beyond "No, your ass doesn't look fat in those jeans at all") is lie.

    You're right, though. Took me a freaking half hour to find those posts from a month ago - what a waste of time. I think my taking the time to refute the Liberties, Masks, and Maasches is what made Zero ignore me. lol

    And don't be sorry - that was the inappropriately funniest thing I've heard today.

    Posted by New Dawn at 10/04/2006 @ 12:11pm

  77. BWAHAhahahaaa

    I take it back - Crab's was the funniest thing I've read today!

    I'm a lumberjack, and I'm okay!

    Posted by New Dawn at 10/04/2006 @ 12:13pm

  78. I hate to jump into this one so late (and maybe not at all would be better), but I can't resist.

    What do the words "not even close" mean?

    Posted by Thrawn at 10/04/2006 @ 12:15pm

  79. Yeah, Thrawn, that was unnecessary, but okay, you want to stir shit. I understand. Maskitis is obviously communicable.

    I will readily admit that I did not know that one internment camp stayed open for just less than four years. Gee, on that one point, those three words you selected from what I wrote, I guess four years is kind of close to five.

    Of course, this administration is going for eight, and the occupations and fear-mongering and lies and vague pronouncements of collaborations between secular and fundamentalist groups (vehemently opposed to one another and since repeatedly debunked), the threat of "mushroom clouds", etc., and declaring "war" (an always upsetting and fear-inducing word) on a tactic to foster fear of a nebulous enemy have yet to stop.

    The Japanese were released in less than four, and they did not represent the entire American populace.

    Happy with your little point?

    Posted by New Dawn at 10/04/2006 @ 12:22pm

  80. You're right, though. Took me a freaking half hour to find those posts from a month ago - what a waste of time. I think my taking the time to refute the Liberties, Masks, and Maasches is what made Zero ignore me. lol

    And don't be sorry - that was the inappropriately funniest thing I've heard today.

    Posted by NEW DAWN 10/04/2006 @ 12:11am

    I think just about everyone realizes that MASK's posts are filled with hyperbole, cant, and misdirection. He's the boy who cried, "wolf", too many times. The other two are similar. I imagine the ones I have on ignore might be making all kinds of assertions against me but I usually credit others with being able to see through the BS.

    If that's true about ZERO maybe he'll see this and restore you. I'm sure a conversation with him would be at a much higher level than one with the others you mentioned.

    Posted by fromredbird at 10/04/2006 @ 12:58pm

  81. Read the salient part, all

    "And you're trying to equate Japanese internment camps with questionably color-coded fear charts, vague pronouncements of collaborations between secular and fundamentalist groups (opposed to one another), the threat of "mushroom clouds", etc., and declaring "war" (an always upsetting and fear-inducing word) on a tactic to foster fear of a nebulous enemy."

    So, if "I'm trying to equate" that can mean only one of TWO things...

    1. That ND thought Japanese internment was WORSE than "Bush's pronoucements" and he thought I was "equating them" (obviously not if you read the whole thing)

    or

    2. That Japanese internment COULD NOT be "equated" with "Bush pronouncments" because Bush's color codes were WORSE.

    He says their not "equatable" ergo one has precedence over the other. Yet it is obvious from what I wrote that I thought that Japanese internment was MUCH worse than anything Bush has SAID or "pronounced".

    ND obviously...does not.

    He got caught....his Bush Fever took over, whereby ANYTHING that Bush does is 1000x worse than anything else than has EVER happened in this country in the past.

    And being a self-righteous liberal...he obviously can't admit he was wrong or "got a little hyperbolic on that one".

    Posted by Mask at 10/04/2006 @ 12:59pm

  82. I think just about everyone realizes that MASK's posts are filled with hyperbole, cant, and misdirection.

    Posted by FROMREDBIRD 10/04/2006 @ 12:58am

    No just you, Larry (WILL), and Shemp (LILLIAN), FRB!

    Posted by Mask at 10/04/2006 @ 1:01pm

  83. This is why it's important for at least some of the politicians out there to try to ensure that basic human rights are respected in regard to everyone, not just the heterosexual mob. When the Democrats climb aboard the "burn the baby-eating perverts!" bandwagon, it's not surprising that a lot of ordinary respectable citizens - who happen to be gay - start feeling unsafe.

    Posted by NIKOLAS 10/04/2006 @ 01:01am

    Reading your posts someone could think we're back in the fifteenth century.

    You want Democrats to, right now, get up on a stump and proclaim that they're going to defend gays against "the witch-hunt"? I couldn't think of a better way to get the general public to attribute pedophilia to homosexuality.

    Or maybe you consider the two interchangeable. You haven't clarified that. If not, your loyalties are overwhelming your commonsense.

    Posted by fromredbird at 10/04/2006 @ 1:13pm

  84. MASK, you're walking around with the seat of your pants missing and you're the only one who doesn't know it.

    Posted by fromredbird at 10/04/2006 @ 1:15pm

  85. He got caught....his Bush Fever took over, whereby ANYTHING that Bush does is 1000x worse than anything else than has EVER happened in this country in the past.

    And being a self-righteous liberal...he obviously can't admit he was wrong or "got a little hyperbolic on that one".

    Posted by MASK 10/04/2006 @ 12:59am

    I didn't get "caught" at anything but your delusions.

    "Bush fever", "self-righteous", "can't admit he was wrong", "got a little hyperbolic".

    Yeah, okay. Whatever helps you sleep at night.

    No one has come to your defense and called you honest.

    You're officially a dead horse, Mask, as well as a lying piece of shit. And it isn't just Lillian, Bird, and I that know it.

    Sometimes, Mask, after a while of everyone around you disliking and mistrusting you, you have to come to understand that maybe it's about you.

    Posted by New Dawn at 10/04/2006 @ 1:35pm

  86. Posted by NEW DAWN 10/04/2006 @ 1:35pm

    You must like what I post....you STILL don't put me on "Ignore", while I know you have others on your list.

    or is it that you just like COMPLAINING about me and hoping to win converts?

    Or are you trying to "equate the two"?!?!?!!?

    LOL!

    Posted by Mask at 10/04/2006 @ 1:38pm

  87. Posted by FROMREDBIRD 10/04/2006 @ 1:15pm

    No,no....Zionists stole the seat of my pants in 1947, so I'm going to nuke them to show my moral superiority!

    Posted by Mask at 10/04/2006 @ 1:39pm

  88. "his Bush Fever took over, whereby ANYTHING that Bush does is 1000x worse than anything else than has EVER happened in this country in the past."

    Posted by MASK 10/04/2006 @ 12:59am

    Now, you're putting the words "ANYTHING that Bush does is 1000x worse than anything else than has EVER happened in this country in the past" in my mouth.

    Yep - another lie. I have never said any such thing, and am tired of proving that you are a liar.

    Congrats, dickhead - you finally convinced me to ignore you along with Rese and Plunger.

    Posted by New Dawn at 10/04/2006 @ 1:41pm

  89. I think just about everyone realizes that MASK's posts are filled with hyperbole, cant, and misdirection.

    Posted by FROMREDBIRD 10/04/2006 @ 12:58am

    No just you, Larry (WILL), and Shemp (LILLIAN), FRB!

    Posted by MASK 10/04/2006 @ 1:01pm |

    Another lie by MASK. I think FROMREDBIRD hit the nail on the head.

    Posted by dlg at 10/04/2006 @ 2:00pm

  90. Dennis Hastert is a former childrens "wrestling coach", rolling around with little kids on a mat.

    What is wrong with Conservative Republicans?

    Posted by LiberalPride at 10/04/2006 @ 2:09pm

  91. Posted by DLG 10/04/2006 @ 2:00pm

    Sorry I left you out...."and Curley Joe DeRita (DLG)"

    Posted by Mask at 10/04/2006 @ 2:25pm

  92. Posted by LIBERALPRIDE 10/04/2006 @ 2:09pm

    So, being a wrestling coach is an indicator of being a child molester!?!?!?

    (This thing is spiralling SO outrageously now...hehe)

    Posted by Mask at 10/04/2006 @ 2:26pm

  93. Congrats, dickhead - you finally convinced me to ignore you along with Rese and Plunger.

    Posted by NEW DAWN 10/04/2006 @ 1:41pm

    I'm betting he won't....let's wait and see....hehe

    Posted by Mask at 10/04/2006 @ 2:27pm

  94. Such a funny little child you are mask. Go ahead, I'll let you have the last word.

    Posted by dlg at 10/04/2006 @ 2:29pm

  95. Missed this one but makes sense:

    http://misterfurious.blogspot.com/2006/10/hole-dig-repeat.html

    Hole. Dig. Repeat.

    While reading the WaPo article on the Foley press excuse conference, a couple things jumped out at me. First, this: "I was disgusted by the revelations and disappointed that he [Foley] would violate the trust of the citizens who placed him in office," Bush said at an elementary school during a campaign swing in California.

    President Partisan Douchebag will never be accused of "feeling anybody's pain." Read that statement carefully. Foley only betrayed the Republican voters of his district, Mr. President? Or, how about, he violated the trust of parents and citizens everywhere regardless of political affiliation. He abused and betrayed the trust of children entrusted to work in his office. He violated the trust of society

    Like everything else in this disgusting scandal, these shitheads cannot see beyond their own party and interest. Ever. Even after the fact, in supposedly thoughtful and conciliatory statements. They cannot help themselves. Throw. Them. All. Out.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/04/2006 @ 3:03pm

  96. Posted by DLG 10/04/2006 @ 2:29pm

    Gee....thanks!

    Posted by Mask at 10/04/2006 @ 3:12pm

  97. Yeah, Thrawn, that was unnecessary, but okay, you want to stir shit. I understand. Maskitis is obviously communicable.

    I will readily admit that I did not know that one internment camp stayed open for just less than four years. Gee, on that one point, those three words you selected from what I wrote, I guess four years is kind of close to five.

    Again, this could be a mistake, but that's not what I was going for at all. I wasn't nitpicking particular details of a timeframe claim, because I really don't care. What struck me as curious is a broader implication of "not even close." The reason it struck me as curious is because it necessarily implies that some kind of magnitude comparison is being made; to say that one bad thing is "not even close" to another necessarily means that the latter is substantially worse than the former. Thus, we would say that the Boston Massacre was "not even close" to the Holocaust.

    When you talk about two bad things, and say that one of them is "not even close" to one another, you're necessarily setting up a comparison between them, which of course entails that they can be compared in the first place; as such, the idea that these two bad things could be compared is implicit within your own rhetoric.

    President Partisan Douchebag will never be accused of "feeling anybody's pain." Read that statement carefully. Foley only betrayed the Republican voters of his district, Mr. President? Or, how about, he violated the trust of parents and citizens everywhere regardless of political affiliation. He abused and betrayed the trust of children entrusted to work in his office. He violated the trust of society

    Like everything else in this disgusting scandal, these shitheads cannot see beyond their own party and interest. Ever. Even after the fact, in supposedly thoughtful and conciliatory statements. They cannot help themselves. Throw. Them. All. Out.

    Posted by HSUBFOOLS 10/04/2006 @ 3:03pm

    Of all the attacks you could make, this is your indictment? The idea behind what Bush said (presumably) is that when you elect someone to an office, you put a substantial amount of trust in them; voters outside his district could not have invested trust in him, obviously, because they didn't elect him to begin with. Ergo, he betrayed the trust of the only ones who ever entrusted him with anything.

    Posted by Thrawn at 10/04/2006 @ 3:19pm

  98. Posted by THRAWN 10/04/2006 @ 3:19pm

    The idiot as always-- Foley chaired the House Caucus on ________, remember what it was? The pages weren't only repub's. And Foley just happens to be a member of _______? Now, does his aoth of office say?

    Thlawn, you are so lost on so much it's pitifulness at it's best. If you were to bother to follow the link and actually read what I wrote you'd have seen that someone else wrote what I pasted. It was simply a point I'd missed from the hsuB spiel, nothing more.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/04/2006 @ 3:31pm

  99. No, Thrawn -

    See my 11:58.

    I didn't bring up internment camps in my "rhetoric", someone else did.

    When I said the two weren't even close, I was talking about a finite incident (internment) as not the same or "not even close" to a five-year (and continuing) campaign of terror about terror, inluding all of the examples of what that means to me that I've listed previously.

    Someone else gave internment as an example, which was not the same, or even close, to what I was talking about. Not even close as an example of what I was talking about. Get it?

    An apple is not even close to being a watermelon, is it? Both fruits, sure, but not even close to being the same as one another, unless you want to get down to the lowest common denominators - round, fruit, etc.

    Intentional obtuseness or just shit-stirring on your part?

    I have my own guess.

    Posted by New Dawn at 10/04/2006 @ 4:01pm

  100. THRAWN....read this again

    "When I said the two weren't even close, I was talking about a finite incident (internment) as not the same or "not even close" to a five-year (and continuing) campaign of terror about terror, inluding all of the examples of what that means to me that I've listed previously."

    Posted by NEW DAWN 10/04/2006 @ 4:01pm

    So being locked up in an internment camp for FOUR years....is not as bad as "color codes" and "Bush pronoucements" for FIVE years.

    ND is a stupidicus of the prime order!

    Posted by Mask at 10/04/2006 @ 4:03pm

  101. How funny, in a sick, sad way...

    Rio starts his post calling all liberals gay-bashers, and ends it by bashing a gay Senator for "at least two other men wearing ONLY body paint!!!!!!!!"

    Where's the indiscretion or the crime?

    And he still doesn't seem to understand that there's a difference between that scenario and an adult in a position of power (who co-chaired a committee dedicated to combatting exploitation) exploiting a teenager...

    sigh... Some people...

    Posted by New Dawn at 10/04/2006 @ 5:21pm

  102. bashing a gay Senator for [being with] "at least two other men wearing ONLY body paint!!!!!!!!"

    Posted by New Dawn at 10/04/2006 @ 5:21pm

  103. off the MSNBC site:

    Top aide involved in Foley sex scandal resigns

    Kirk Fordham says he alerted Hastert's office of Foley's behavior in 2004

    WASHINGTON - A senior congressional aide said Wednesday he told House Speaker Dennis Hastert's office about worrisome conduct between former Rep. Mark Foley with teenage pages more than three years ago, long before officials have acknowledged becoming aware of the issue.

    Kirk Fordham made his comments to The Associated Press in an interview as a Kentucky Republican canceled a campaign fundraising event with Hastert.

    Posted by leftofcenter at 10/04/2006 @ 5:30pm

  104. Posted by NEW DAWN 10/04/2006 @ 12:17am | ignore this person

    LOVED IT!!! LOL!!! I was sorely tempted to dig through the times he did the EXACT same thing to me...lying about what I said...even going so far as to put quotes around HIS words, as if they were mine! But I see it wasn't required.

    As Mask loves to say..."(he he!)"

    Posted by Lillian at 10/04/2006 @ 5:34pm

  105. I think just about everyone realizes that MASK's posts are filled with hyperbole, cant, and misdirection.

    Posted by FROMREDBIRD 10/04/2006 @ 12:58am

    No just you, Larry (WILL), and Shemp (LILLIAN), FRB!

    Posted by MASK 10/04/2006 @ 1:01pm |

    Add me to the growing list.

    Posted by crabwalk at 10/04/2006 @ 5:52pm

  106. Alright, I've got a little prediction to make (al la Mask, but I promise mine's in the near future.) If Barry ever gets back to try and present his new data on homosexuality and pedophilia he will actually be using...

    Judith Reisman's work

    It's exactly the kind of science he favors (despite the fact that I asked for new data and Reisman has none that any other serious researcher would even touch much less take seriously.) But she is the pet "sex researcher" of the Family Research Council and since that's just about Barry's speed I'm betting that's what he's turned up. If he actually makes so bold as to use that lamentable series of discredited rantings I'll happily demolish it. If he doesn't, I won't waste the forum's time.

    Now, let's see if I even get an answer from him at all, or this has scared him off by being too accurate a prediction.

    Posted by Stwriley at 10/04/2006 @ 5:59pm

  107. Howzabout we throw another log on the fire? Off the AP wire

    Pa. Congressman Makes Apology in TV Ad Wednesday, October 4th, 2006 at 1:10pm

    Rep. Don Sherwood, a Republican fighting for re-election in northeastern Pennsylvania, says in a TV ad that he is "truly sorry" for cheating on his wife but denies ever abusing the woman he had the affair with.

    Sherwood, a four-term congressman, has a seat that had been considered safe until it was revealed last year that police in 2004 investigated an incident between Sherwood and Cynthia Ore at his Washington apartment.

    Charges were never filed, but Ore sued Sherwood, claiming he had choked her. Sherwood apologized for the affair but denied abusing Ore. The suit was settled for an undisclosed sum.

    Posted by leftofcenter at 10/04/2006 @ 6:02pm

  108. Posted by STWRILEY 10/04/2006 @ 5:59pm

    BARRY probably has no net access at The Burger Hut, so give him time to get home to his parents house and do some "research".

    I hope he comes up with something, you are fun to watch as you tear it up. I know of no one here that does their homework as well as you.

    Posted by crabwalk at 10/04/2006 @ 6:13pm

  109. Damn straight - I second that all day.

    STWriley is one of my faves.

    Posted by New Dawn at 10/04/2006 @ 6:23pm

  110. Posted by LILLIAN 10/04/2006 @ 5:34pm Posted by CRABWALK 10/04/2006 @ 5:52pm

    :)

    Posted by New Dawn at 10/04/2006 @ 6:29pm

  111. I think just about everyone realizes that MASK's posts are filled with hyperbole, cant, and misdirection.

    Posted by FROMREDBIRD 10/04/2006 @ 12:58am

    No just you, Larry (WILL), and Shemp (LILLIAN), FRB!

    Posted by MASK 10/04/2006 @ 1:01pm |

    Add me to the growing list.

    Posted by CRABWALK 10/04/2006 @ 5:52pm |

    Add me to the list too Mask.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/04/2006 @ 6:34pm

  112. I read that AP also posted Foley as a dem for a few minutes before retracting and/or correcting. Isn't that a little on the weird side? I see a lot of hysteria bubbling up from all directions repub.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/04/2006 @ 6:37pm

  113. Foley being shown with a "D" next to his name on Bill O'Reilly's show -

    Programming error? Genuine "oopsie - sowwy"?

    Or the Republican American propaganda channel hard at work?

    They misreport - you decide.

    Posted by New Dawn at 10/04/2006 @ 7:09pm

  114. Posted by LILLIAN 10/04/2006 @ 5:34pm

    Except in YOUR case, I have a post of yours....where you blatently lie!

    Care to see it?

    Posted by Mask at 10/04/2006 @ 7:20pm

  115. No just you, Larry (WILL), and Shemp (LILLIAN), FRB!

    Posted by MASK 10/04/2006 @ 1:01pm

    you poor little guy. Maybe if you shut off dora and got out of that room in the back of the hardware store more often, you'd see those mean old stooges really aren't more then a few of your remaining brain cells fucking with you

    Posted by Will C. at 10/04/2006 @ 7:55pm

  116. Rio, Rio, Rio

    It seems to me that you just don't have a non-partisan bone in your body.

    How many of those examples you just love to list, deal with underage CHILDREN? You really don't want me to list the Republicans who have strayed, who have drooled at the sight of a young girl. Because if I did, you'd be reading it for a long, long time.

    If I hear about Miss Lewinsky one more time I will barf on the next person who mentions her. She was an ADULT! Barney Frank - adult. Keep 'em coming.

    Nor does this have anything to do with being gay. The great percentage of predators are heterosexual. Soliciting a minor for sexual activity is a control issue, just the same as rape.

    People, get out of your caves and deal with this properly. This was a cover up of immense proportions. Anyone arguing against this fact is obviously uncaring about the safety of your child, my child or anyone's child.

    It's about CHILDREN!!!!!

    Posted by maxiet at 10/04/2006 @ 7:55pm

  117. Is it time to have Fox "news" forced to register as a PAC / 527?

    I mean it seems "criminal" to call that blatant, naked, GOP cheerleading channel "news"

    Posted by freedomplease at 10/04/2006 @ 7:56pm

  118. Although the manner the Republican leadership has handled the Foley case is despicable and demonstrates they have no respect for tradional American values, their refusal to move an expulsion resolution for admitted felon Bob Ney is even worse. If you're just a regular federal worker, a clerk or a secretary, you are indefinitely suspended if you are indicted for any crime which could end up in your incarceration and are dismissed upon conviction. Even if you are exonerated at the criminal trial, you still are likely to lose your job, as the standard of proof to dismiss someone is substantially lower than the standard of proof required to support a criminal conviction.

    So how come Bob Ney has not been forced to resign? How can the self-righteous Republican leadership -- including John Boehner of Ohio -- simply leave it up to the felon Ney, currently awaiting sentencing for using his office for personal gain, to decide when to resign?

    Of course the Republicans will point to Congressman William Jefferson, but he is entitled to a presumption of innocence at this point. But Ney plead guilty and is awaiting sentencing. I guess these "law and order" Republicans believe they should be shielded from the laws they pass.

    And why hasn't the media just hounded this guy out of office?

    Posted by NonAmnesiac at 10/04/2006 @ 8:30pm

  119. Posted by NEW DAWN 10/04/2006 @ 7:09pm

    Foley being shown with a "D" next to his name on Bill O'Reilly's show -

    Programming error? Genuine "oopsie - sowwy"?

    Or the Republican American propaganda channel hard at work?

    They misreport - you decide.

    It gets worse... at least you expect this kind of behavior from FOXNews. DailyKos has the scoop on not only on FOXNews doing it again [dailykos.com] on the "Big Story Weekend" but also a link to Talking Points Memo and a story on an AP wire doing the same thing [talkingpointsmemo.com]. The AP story at least seems to have been fixed, but who knows who picked it up before that? The noise machine in action, but this time I doubt it will save any of the guilty.

    Posted by Stwriley at 10/04/2006 @ 9:16pm

  120. All - It is, of course, interesting and entertaining (and even satisfying) to talk about the FoleyHastert etc. issue. However, let's keep our eyes on the prize: ditching the neo-fascists in 2006 (and I use the term neo-fascists deliberately, having invested a fair amount of effort and time in studying fascist regimes). We WANT this scandel to keep going - the longer the better. I realize this may sound cynical but, remember: if the Reps continue to govern, it is not just some obscure central Asian country's citizens that suffer - it is, because of the US ability to (as they say) "project" military power, the world as a whole that suffers. The Dems are not saviours but they will at least stall the push toward world empire and the catastrophic consequences for all of that demoniacal plan.

    - Avenging Angel

    Posted by strobel at 10/04/2006 @ 9:25pm

  121. It gets worse... at least you expect this kind of behavior from FOXNews. DailyKos has the scoop on not only on FOXNews doing it again [dailykos.com] on the "Big Story Weekend" but also a link to Talking Points Memo and a story on an AP wire doing the same thing [talkingpointsmemo.com]. The AP story at least seems to have been fixed, but who knows who picked it up before that? The noise machine in action, but this time I doubt it will save any of the guilty.

    Posted by STWRILEY 10/04/2006 @ 9:1

    The sickest part to me, Riley, is that there are millions of Americans slurping down Fox pablum who will neither exercise enough intellectual curiousity to know (nor would they care) or to change the channel long enough to realize that that was a mistake.

    It's so much easier to just nod and drool and mumble "yep, another Democrat pervert", even though Foley...

    isn't.

    Posted by New Dawn at 10/04/2006 @ 9:32pm

  122. Charges were never filed, but Ore sued Sherwood, claiming he had choked her. Sherwood apologized for the affair but denied abusing Ore. The suit was settled for an undisclosed sum.

    Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 10/04/2006 @ 6:02pm

    Was she suspected of being related to al-Qaeda? That would make all the difference in the world.

    Posted by fromredbird at 10/04/2006 @ 9:37pm

  123. Your attempt to disarm criticism of your ridiculously pretentious assertions with the "homophobic" implication is exceptionally dishonest

    Posted by FROMREDBIRD 10/04/2006

    Nothing remotely dishonest about my position in regard to this issue. You, and many other Democrats, are explicitly describing Foley as a "pedophile" (indeed, I'm wondering why this website is happy to publish such remarks without worrying about the threat of legal action - maybe the libel laws are different in the US). Since pedophiles are people attracted to children below the age of puberty, it's clearly YOUR position, & that of the political party that you support, that is deliberately dishonest. And destructively so, because it's the kind of association (older males attracted to younger males = pedophilia, regardless of the ages involved) that does indeed to serve to reinforce existing public hostility towards gays - hostility that's certainly not restricted to avowedly Right-wing groups, but is clearly common amongst Democrats, however hypocritically they may deny it.

    Posted by Nikolas at 10/04/2006 @ 9:42pm

  124. I think just about everyone realizes that MASK's posts are filled with hyperbole, cant, and misdirection.

    Posted by FROMREDBIRD 10/04/2006 @ 12:58am

    No just you, Larry (WILL), and Shemp (LILLIAN), FRB!

    Posted by MASK 10/04/2006 @ 1:01pm

    Another lie by MASK. I think FROMREDBIRD hit the nail on the head.

    Posted by DLG 10/04/2006 @ 2:00pm

    Add me to the growing list.

    Posted by CRABWALK 10/04/2006 @ 5:52pm

    Add me to the list too Mask.

    Posted by HSUBFOOLS 10/04/2006 @ 6:34pm

    you poor little guy. Maybe if you shut off dora and got out of that room in the back of the hardware store more often, you'd see those mean old stooges really aren't more then a few of your remaining brain cells fucking with you

    Posted by WILL C. 10/04/2006 @ 7:55pm

    -----------------------------------------

    MASK, you just kept on posting and posting content-free detritus until everyone got completely fed up with you. You don't know when to stop. Which realization led me to an epiphany- you aren't one of the hamsters.

    You're one of the lemmings.

    Posted by fromredbird at 10/04/2006 @ 9:49pm

  125. Posted by LILLIAN 10/04/2006 @ 5:34pm

    Except in YOUR case, I have a post of yours....where you blatently lie!

    Care to see it?

    Posted by MASK 10/04/2006 @ 7:20pm

    No.

    Posted by fromredbird at 10/04/2006 @ 9:51pm

  126. "So, being a wrestling coach is an indicator of being a child molester!?!?!?"

    I'm not sure. But I have wondered that since Jr. high school.

    Eric

    Posted by Malcontent at 10/04/2006 @ 9:58pm

  127. Do I get to be "Mo", or is that already taken?

    (Maybe Mask needs to pick a bigger cast of characters).

    Eric

    Posted by Malcontent at 10/04/2006 @ 10:08pm

  128. Foley might more accurately be defined as a pederast, rather than a pedophile.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/04/2006 @ 10:09pm

  129. (he he)

    Posted by Malcontent at 10/04/2006 @ 10:10pm

  130. My final word on this matter:

    There's a very important difference between the nature of "pedophilia", and adult attraction to young post-pubescents. Pedophilia - adult sexual attraction to children below the age of puberty - is identified by psychologists as a "paraphilia" or sexual perversion. Adult sexual attraction to people in their mid-to-late teens is NOT identified as a paraphilia. Although a middle-aged man being sexually aroused by teenagers might be thought immoral (or at least morally dubious) by many people, it is not normally symptomatic of "sexual perversion" of any kind. Using the language of sexual perversion to condemn the behaviour of a homosexual man not apparently engaged in perverted behaviour obviously serves to reinforce the commonly held belief that homosexuality = perversion.

    It's easily possible to express strong disapproval of Foley's behaviour (as I have done, repeatedly), without confusing ethically reprehensible behaviour with "sexually perverted" behaviour. But of course, the "pervert" claim sounds a lot more sensational and gets the public roused to much greater passions.

    Posted by Nikolas at 10/04/2006 @ 10:15pm

  131. Do I get to be "Mo", or is that already taken?

    (Maybe Mask needs to pick a bigger cast of characters).

    Eric

    Posted by MALCONTENT 10/04/2006 @ 10:08pm

    I thought the same thing.

    If we go Disney, I get Grumpy.

    Posted by New Dawn at 10/04/2006 @ 10:18pm

  132. Your attempt to disarm criticism of your ridiculously pretentious assertions with the "homophobic" implication is exceptionally dishonest

    Posted by FROMREDBIRD 10/04/2006

    Nothing remotely dishonest about my position in regard to this issue. You, and many other Democrats, are explicitly describing Foley as a "pedophile" (indeed, I'm wondering why this website is happy to publish such remarks without worrying about the threat of legal action - maybe the libel laws are different in the US). Since pedophiles are people attracted to children below the age of puberty, it's clearly YOUR position, & that of the political party that you support, that is deliberately dishonest. And destructively so, because it's the kind of association (older males attracted to younger males = pedophilia, regardless of the ages involved) that does indeed to serve to reinforce existing public hostility towards gays - hostility that's certainly not restricted to avowedly Right-wing groups, but is clearly common amongst Democrats, however hypocritically they may deny it.

    Posted by NIKOLAS 10/04/2006 @ 9:42pm

    I could show you a dozen dictionary definitions that don't specify "below the age of puberty." These two, for example:

    [Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary] paedophile UK, US pedophile noun [C] a person, especially a man, who is sexually interested in children

    [The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition] NOUN: An adult who is sexually attracted to a child or children.

    If you want to claim that a 16-yr-old is not a child, do so all you want, but I'm not buying it and I doubt that most Americans are, either. That doesn't make them bigoted homophobes. They are parents concerned about the happiness and wellbeing of their children. Maybe you've never felt any need to consider it from that perspective. You should consider whether you are the one who has inappropriate attitudes rather than falsely accusing others of inappropriate attitudes toward all non-heterosexuals.

    It seems to me very clear now that you are saying that any child above the age of puberty is fair sexual game for an adult of any age. That would be about eleven years old for girls and about twelve to thirteen for boys. That is nothing but a physical change and is not coincident with a maturing of a child's reasoning, experience, or wisdom. If you don't give a damn about the latter then you need to go seek professional help.

    It's highly unfortunate that you arrogate to yourself the mantle of a representative of all homosexuals. The overwhelming majority of them do not share your apparent affinity.

    Posted by fromredbird at 10/04/2006 @ 10:35pm

  133. Do I get to be "Mo", or is that already taken?

    (Maybe Mask needs to pick a bigger cast of characters).

    Eric

    Posted by MALCONTENT 10/04/2006 @ 10:08pm

    I thought the same thing.

    If we go Disney, I get Grumpy.

    Posted by NEW DAWN 10/04/2006 @ 10:18pm

    We are going to need a bigger list, I suggest we use the role call list from the House of Represenatives . I'll take John Doolittle.

    If anybody claims Boehner they have to say it phonetically. "Baner", who is he kidding?

    Posted by crabwalk at 10/04/2006 @ 10:37pm

  134. FROMREDBIRD writes:

    >

    Yes, I am saying that. Your definition is incomplete. Pedophila is not just an interest in having sex with children, but in regards to a specific type of child. Namely, one that is either prepubescent or at the beginning of puberty. So technically, Foley is not a pedophile, but may be a sex offender because 1) of the age of the child (but only in some states), and 2) because of Foley's position in relation to the child.

    If I was in my fifties, in my home State of Michigan, I could go and try to pick up a 16 year old, provided I was not the child's teacher, employer, or relative. That would be legal in many states.

    Posted by Terrin at 10/04/2006 @ 10:42pm

  135. Posted by NIKOLAS 10/04/2006 @ 10:15pm

    You refer to psychiatric literature the way some people refer to the bible to justify their behavior and you apparently pore over your literature just as much as they do theirs. You just don't get it.

    Posted by fromredbird at 10/04/2006 @ 10:43pm

  136. Posted by FROMREDBIRD 10/04/2006 @ 10:35pm

    this is an aspect of society I find interesting. Up till about 80 years ago in most western countries a girl came of age as early as 13, basically at puberty or child rearing age. This often went with the belief that women were fer bearin' chil'ens. As we "progress" we have decided that with age comes some wisdom and have increased the minimum age of consent. (I would argue 16 is way to young to marry). but that was an awful long time coming and us menfolk still have a taste for the young stuff. In many societies girls are carted off at a young age. Is this one of those relativistic moralities? Does an age of consent of 16 in North Carolina make them less moral than California at 18? Is there a Red state Blue state comparison?

    Posted by crabwalk at 10/04/2006 @ 10:51pm

  137. Yes, I am saying that. Your definition is incomplete. Pedophila is not just an interest in having sex with children, but in regards to a specific type of child. Namely, one that is either prepubescent or at the beginning of puberty. So technically, Foley is not a pedophile . .

    Posted by TERRIN 10/04/2006 @ 10:42pm

    You say that and a dozen dictionaries say otherwise. Guess what most people consider definitive. It is not the American public's responsibility to professionally delineate Foley's inappropriate behavior in psychiatric terms. Giving his behavior a more highly defined name does not make it less repugnant or acceptable.

    Posted by fromredbird at 10/04/2006 @ 10:51pm

  138. Posted by TERRIN 10/04/2006 @ 10:42pm

    AWWW MAN! I always thought it was 17 here. ahh, missed opportunities. I could-a-been a congressman.

    Posted by crabwalk at 10/04/2006 @ 10:55pm

  139. "If I was in my fifties, in my home State of Michigan, I could go and try to pick up a 16 year old, provided I was not the child's teacher, employer, or relative. That would be legal in many states."

    in this context Foley was employer and teacher.

    it would be interesting to find out if Michigan has any laws against transmitting suggestive materials.

    is this the october surprise Rove has been promising?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/04/2006 @ 10:57pm

  140. Sorry, for some reason your quote did not transfer. I was responding to when FromRedBird said, "A pedophile is an adult who desires and seeks [to have] sex with children. A 16-yr-old is a child and a 52-yr-old is an adult."

    Again, technically, under the standard definition accepted by the American Psychiatric Association, that assertion is not true. There are some minority views, that argue any adult having sex with a child would be pedophile. This wrongly, however, puts people who unknowingly do so in the same category as people who knowingly do so. Moreover, under all definitions having sex with a child is linked to illegally doing so. So if a state allows an adult to have sex with a sixteen year old, as many do, the act would be legal, and the adult would not be a pedophile.

    Posted by Terrin at 10/04/2006 @ 10:57pm

  141. Does an age of consent of 16 in North Carolina make them less moral than California at 18? Is there a Red state Blue state comparison?

    Posted by CRABWALK 10/04/2006 @ 10:51pm

    Interesting question and I bet there would be. I mentioned on another thread yesterday that the age of consent has risen as society has developed economically and socially. Women and children, socially and legally speaking, have certain characteristics of property in more backward societies, property usually disposed of by men.

    It is anything but progressive to argue for a lower age of consent. It seems that there are some around who pine for the "good old days" of ancient history.

    Posted by fromredbird at 10/04/2006 @ 10:58pm

  142. Won't it be sooo American if these clowns get away with raping the Constitution, illegals wars, rigged elections and patsy supreme court picks, but they end up taking the dive on an internet sex scandal?

    Posted by crabwalk at 10/04/2006 @ 11:03pm

  143. Good night and good luck if you're a child.

    Posted by fromredbird at 10/04/2006 @ 11:05pm

  144. Terrin, you make some valuable points here. we can distinguish between legal and ethical here. even if Foley were entirely free of legal jeppardy, and that is not yet clear, he would be in violation of ethics. and this brings me around to Clinton. consensual sex with an adult intern in the workplace is certainly legal, but not ethical. I'm not sure if ethics would have been served had they gone to a motel. there are still degrees of violations, and Foley's seems to me to be more egregious.

    " In many societies girls are carted off at a young age."

    here in our own country by polygamists, who cloak their barbarity in religion.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/04/2006 @ 11:08pm

  145. let's not keep repeating the nonsense that a 16 year old is a child. we let them drive cars and work for a living for one. my son just turned 16 and he is no child, nor is he an adult. he is an adolescent.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/04/2006 @ 11:11pm

  146. My final word on this matter:

    There's a very important difference between the nature of "pedophilia", and adult attraction to young post-pubescents. Pedophilia - adult sexual attraction to children below the age of puberty - is identified by psychologists as a "paraphilia" or sexual perversion. Adult sexual attraction to people in their mid-to-late teens is NOT identified as a paraphilia. Although a middle-aged man being sexually aroused by teenagers might be thought immoral (or at least morally dubious) by many people, it is not normally symptomatic of "sexual perversion" of any kind. Using the language of sexual perversion to condemn the behaviour of a homosexual man not apparently engaged in perverted behaviour obviously serves to reinforce the commonly held belief that homosexuality = perversion.

    It's easily possible to express strong disapproval of Foley's behaviour (as I have done, repeatedly), without confusing ethically reprehensible behaviour with "sexually perverted" behaviour. But of course, the "pervert" claim sounds a lot more sensational and gets the public roused to much greater passions.

    Posted by NIKOLAS 10/04/2006 @ 10:15pm

    Only saw your last couple of posts, and I think...

    You're right. In a Diagnostic and Statistical Manual kind of way, anyway. Is it at IV now? I have III on my bookshelf. Great read.

    You're right. To most, older man + younger boy = pedophile.

    You're also right that this is technically incorrect, and that most people, even those who regularly use the term, don't know that.

    You're also right that the above equation often leads to (misplaced) homophobia. No doubt.

    You're also right that this shouldn't be treated as a gay issue.

    But I also think that while the letter of your charges is essentially correct, the spirit of the hyperbole itself may be being given short shrift.

    The very outrage that you acknowledged, whether against "pedophilia", "paraphilia", "perversion" (or whatever subparagraph entry of the DSM I could cite similar words from)...

    It's that very outrage that causes the outraged to bandy about the term "pedophile" with such indifference.

    What the outraged are really saying, I think (I'm one of them), and what you also acknowledged, is that to the vast majority of us, a 52-year old asking a 16-year old if he's hard and if he's recently "wanked it" is wrong. You don't like the term "sexual perversion" attributed to such behavior because that isn't the technical term. Okay, I think coprophilia is a "sexual perversion", and don't care what the book says. Whatever. What we all still seem to agree on is that what Foley did is wrong.

    No matter what the terminology, to everyone I have talked to in my personal life (Bay Area, California, mind you), this is not a gay issue, or even a "pedophile" issue, per se. Some of us think deeper than that.

    Like I said earlier, if any 52-year old, male or female, hit on my 16-year old, asked them if they were hard, or wanking it, or talked about slipping their shorts off while drinking somewhere they wouldn't get "busted", well, that would be "wrong", and we would all have us a little a problem, to say the very least.

    But still, you're right. Some of the outraged are throwing around incorrect terminology.

    Now, I'm just guessing here, but I'd bet that most men on the street don't know the difference between "paraphilia" and "pedophilia".

    Still, you're right to be outraged that the terms "pedophilia" or "perversion" may subsequently be unfairly tied to gays as a result of this. That may happen, and it isn't right.

    And as much as this shouldn't be a "gay" issue, to some, it just is and never will be anything else. Changing the terminology will not, for some, in any way alter the fact that this incident took place between an older man and a younger boy, in other words, a homosexually-oriented relationship - that it will inevitably be viewed by some in that light is an inescapable fact, and an inescapable burden for the gay community to (however unfairly) shoulder.

    That sucks, but it's so.

    I won't plead forgiveness on behalf of those who use that word, "pedophile", to describe Mark Foley, but I also won't decry them. Yes, that term is technically incorrect, but I think I know why they use it. Because if they shouted "THAT'S WRONG", I think they'd mean the same thing.

    And I sincerely hope that this doesn't affect gays the way you think it might.

    Keep up the good fight about the semantics, though. Educate them one at a time if you have to.

    There's a lot of ignorant folks out there.

    Posted by New Dawn at 10/04/2006 @ 11:12pm

  147. Crabwalk, I'll take it just the same, and remember Al Capone, who was not nailed for the St. Valentine's day massacre, but for income tax evasion.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/04/2006 @ 11:12pm

  148. older man + younger boy = pedophile.

    No, pederast

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/04/2006 @ 11:14pm

  149. Posted by CRABWALK 10/04/2006 @ 10:51pm

    And why are you a criminal for having sex with a 16-year old girl on one side or the other of a state line?

    Better hope you set the parking brake.

    Posted by New Dawn at 10/04/2006 @ 11:14pm

  150. here in our own country by polygamists, who cloak their barbarity in religion.

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 10/04/2006 @ 11:08pm

    and ignored by Senators that turn a blind eye, with their collars so tight it looks like a balloon animal.

    Posted by crabwalk at 10/04/2006 @ 11:15pm

  151. Posted by NEW DAWN 10/04/2006 @ 11:14pm

    giggle.

    Posted by crabwalk at 10/04/2006 @ 11:17pm

  152. let's not keep repeating the nonsense that a 16 year old is a child. we let them drive cars and work for a living for one. my son just turned 16 and he is no child, nor is he an adult. he is an adolescent.

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 10/04/2006 @ 11:11pm

    More terminology. Fair enough.

    The point remains that you'd prefer he wasn't exchanging sexually oriented e-mails with a 52-year old congressman. I know we agree on that.

    I don't like the "child" word, either, Johannes, but "adolescent" is so unwieldy.

    ;)

    Posted by New Dawn at 10/04/2006 @ 11:19pm

  153. And why are you a criminal for having sex with a 16-year old girl on one side or the other of a state line?

    states rights? Federalism?

    the problem is that Foley was in a position of authority and trust. a private person may show a sexual interest in a 16 year old, but that is not the same if he/she is a teacher, or a priest.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/04/2006 @ 11:20pm

  154. Posted by NEW DAWN 10/04/2006 @ 11:12pm

    good stuff.

    =========

    i note an absence of a certain type of moral clarity here this evening. Happy Night at the Neo-cons?

    Posted by crabwalk at 10/04/2006 @ 11:21pm

  155. older man + younger boy = pedophile.

    No, pederast

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 10/04/2006 @ 11:14pm

    Wrong. Don't misquote me, please.

    I said

    "To most, older man + younger boy = pedophile."

    Posted by New Dawn at 10/04/2006 @ 11:22pm

  156. It seems to me very clear now that you are saying that any child above the age of puberty is fair sexual game for an adult of any age

    Posted by FROMREDBIRD 10/04/2006 @ 10:35pm

    I know I said I'd had my final say, but I can't let this outrageous misrepresentation go without telling this person exactly what I think of him/her/it. You are clearly incapable of presenting an honest (let alone rational) position on any subject. It is creeps like you that make the Democrats look as two-faced as they usually do to most objective observers. The Republicans may be full of conservative crap, but at least it's honest crap, consistly held.

    You have very clearly announced that in matters like this, you see it as your duty to side with the prejudices of the "moral majority", the Moms and Dads out there who don't want homosexuals anywhere near their teenagers (especially if, heaven forbid, their own 18 year olds turn out to be "that way").

    You are not interested in what psychologists have to say - the great, bigoted American public have greater wisdom in these matters than the experts. You put your faith in the lynch mob, not those who are actually able to separate prejudice from reason.

    It, is, however, pointless continuing to argue with a liar whose only debating strategy is to repeatedly misrepresent the clearly stated position of his adversary, so I'm not going to bother - I've put you on "ignore".

    Posted by Nikolas at 10/04/2006 @ 11:23pm

  157. Times do change. at some colleges and universities there is now prohibition of faculty student sexual and romantic relationships. that was definitely not the case in the 50s and 60s.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/04/2006 @ 11:24pm

  158. the problem is that Foley was in a position of authority and trust. a private person may show a sexual interest in a 16 year old, but that is not the same if he/she is a teacher, or a priest.

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 10/04/2006 @ 11:20pm

    Whoa, Johannes. We may have to agree to disagree here and part ways.

    Am I understanding correctly that you don't have issue with a 52-year old pursuing a 16-year old?

    Like I said earlier, if any 52-year old, male or female, hit on my 16-year old, asked them if they were hard, or wanking it, or talked about slipping their shorts off while drinking somewhere they wouldn't get "busted", well, that would be "wrong", and we would all have us a little a problem, to say the very least.

    Posted by New Dawn at 10/04/2006 @ 11:25pm

  159. new dawn, I was NOT quoting you, or misquoting you, that equation has been made numerous times, here and elsewhere.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/04/2006 @ 11:25pm

  160. This is what you guys have been up to tonight? Debating how young is too young or what word we should use to describe those who explore that mysterious border between icky and okay-I-guess?

    What site is this anyway? Remember...if such things are going to get an honorable congressman to resign, there are some in the Homeland Security office watching your posts and just begging for you to cross the line from pederast to pedophile. Just try them.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 10/04/2006 @ 11:28pm

  161. Am I understanding correctly that you don't have issue with a 52-year old pursuing a 16-year old?

    I think it would definitely depend on the individual case. I mean 52 year old, very bad, but what about 36 year old? or 26 year old? half as bad? 75 year old? even worse? too slippery a slope for me.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/04/2006 @ 11:29pm

  162. TJ, words have a very powerful meaning, see hate speech. certainly it's much easier to succumb to mass hysteria, and the morality police are having a field day. I am not accusing you of that by any means. I just don't think things are as simple as some here make out, no pun intended.I have a huge problem with the anti porn hysteria, for instance, a hysteria that sent a man to jail for 200 years for possessing child porn on his private computer. same with all those stings where cops pretend to be 14 year old girls. I believe that is entrapment, in my mind NOT an acceptable police tactic.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/04/2006 @ 11:34pm

  163. Posted by NIKOLAS 10/04/2006 @ 11:23pm

    Whew...

    That post was 97% hyperbole about how Fromredbird is:

    dishonest, irrational, creepy, two-faced, full of crap, prejudiced, siding with the moral majority, homophobic, disinterested in psychology as a whole, bigoted, unwise, faithful to lynch mobs, prejudiced (again), and a liar...

    2% your views (which all seem to have come from strict psychology rather than any understanding of human nature outside the clinic)...

    And 1% putting Fromredbird on ignore.

    Gotta go get a glass of milk to wash down a month's worth of knee-jerk hyperbole from one poster in one post whom I've never seen on the Nation before!

    Talk about snap judgment!

    Settle down, dude.

    Posted by New Dawn at 10/04/2006 @ 11:35pm

  164. new dawn, I was NOT quoting you, or misquoting you, that equation has been made numerous times, here and elsewhere.

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 10/04/2006 @ 11:25pm

    I finally put Mask on iggy today, and I'm touchy about being misquoted, Jo.

    Misplaced angst. My apologies.

    Posted by New Dawn at 10/04/2006 @ 11:35pm

  165. Am I understanding correctly that you don't have issue with a 52-year old pursuing a 16-year old?

    I think it would definitely depend on the individual case. I mean 52 year old, very bad, but what about 36 year old? or 26 year old? half as bad? 75 year old? even worse? too slippery a slope for me.

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 10/04/2006 @ 11:29pm

    No slope to me.

    A 52-year old guy shows up on my second story porch, looking to take my 16-year old son drinking and fondling,

    better know how to fly.

    Posted by New Dawn at 10/04/2006 @ 11:37pm

  166. that's OK, New Dawn

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/04/2006 @ 11:38pm

  167. JR,

    Just me, but much of the stuff here seems tangential at best. We could have that discussion if we were talking about one of us slobs connecting with a 16 year old on myspace. But we're talking about a senator using his position and authority to hook up with 16 year olds, by any measure a misuse of his publicly granted position. On top of that, we have a network of enablers that allowed his abuse of power rather than admit that one of their own might not be completely squeaky clean. Hell, you'd have thought that in the midst of DeLay getting the boot, they could have tossed Foley out with barely a blip of attention.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 10/04/2006 @ 11:39pm

  168. A 52-year old guy shows up on my second story porch, looking to take my 16-year old son drinking and fondling,

    what about a twenty six year old, that your son, or daughter, is in love with? I realize we are far afield from the Foley matter, but I think it is useful to examine one's prejudices and standards. the word fondling is from the word fond, which means like or love.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/04/2006 @ 11:43pm

  169. TJ:"much of the stuff here seems tangential at best

    you are absolutely correct in this, but hey it's late and they's our tangents.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/04/2006 @ 11:45pm

  170. Fair enough. Free country...more or less, for the time being.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 10/04/2006 @ 11:47pm

  171. i am beginning to think that there is a Python for all occasions here at The Nation.

    Lets not bicker and argue about whats called what. This is a supposed to be happy occasion (with hopefully minor damage to the victims). A repube got caught with his fingers on the naughty keys, the value cops covered it up and at least one is going down in flames. Maybe two.

    Palm Beach? Say, Thats good pig country isn't it?

    sorry, I could not stop myself.

    Good day.

    Posted by crabwalk at 10/04/2006 @ 11:48pm

  172. Tj, you have made that point above succinctly, I have made that point myself as you can see above, and on similar threads.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/04/2006 @ 11:54pm

  173. 16-year old love? Not going to happen. While 16-year olds can make some "adult" decisions, as you said, drive cars, hold jobs, etc., my house and the way I raise my child isn't "Romeo and Juliet".

    Call me Capulet. I can take it. ;)

    My son, when he's a "legal adult", will be able to make that decision for himself. At that point, whether I agree with his decision or not, I can't dictate the decision for him. I may disagree, for instance, if the whatever-old is a loser, but it won't be my place to decide.

    In the meanwhile, I will be a responsible parent and know that teenaged love is ofen impetuous and bold, but also stupid and irresponsible. And I will steer my son clear of dangers to his psyche or his soul.

    Posted by New Dawn at 10/04/2006 @ 11:54pm

  174. Crabwalk, I love a good bit of Schadenfreude.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/04/2006 @ 11:56pm

  175. In the meanwhile, I will be a responsible parent and know that teenaged love is ofen impetuous and bold, but also stupid and irresponsible. And I will steer my son clear of dangers to his psyche or his soul.

    adult love is often impetuous and bold, but also stupid and irresponsible, check the divorce court and the police blotter. the second part shows an optimism and a certainty I do not possess. I am not questioning yours.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/05/2006 @ 12:01am

  176. two more minor points. my mom left home at age 16 to make her way in the world. she was not a child. Romeo and Juliet was written when the life expectancy was around 40 years old.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/05/2006 @ 12:04am

  177. We have to agree to disagree, Johannes.

    I would argue everything you just said.

    Posted by New Dawn at 10/05/2006 @ 12:05am

  178. I don't mind that a bit, New Dawn

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/05/2006 @ 12:10am

  179. John: Read my comment on my blog: guestlecturer.blogspot.com/. Thanks and be well. Bob Sullivan

    Posted by bobsullivan at 10/05/2006 @ 12:59am

  180. Distinguish between gay behavior and paedophilia.

    Posted by bobsullivan at 10/05/2006 @ 01:01am

  181. You, and many other Democrats, are explicitly describing Foley as a "pedophile" (indeed, I'm wondering why this website is happy to publish such remarks without worrying about the threat of legal action - maybe the libel laws are different in the US). Since pedophiles are people attracted to children below the age of puberty, it's clearly YOUR position, & that of the political party that you support, that is deliberately dishonest. And destructively so, because it's the kind of association (older males attracted to younger males = pedophilia, regardless of the ages involved) that does indeed to serve to reinforce existing public hostility towards gays - hostility that's certainly not restricted to avowedly Right-wing groups, but is clearly common amongst Democrats, however hypocritically they may deny it.

    Posted by NIKOLAS 10/04/2006 @ 9:42pm

    It seems to me very clear now that you are saying that any child above the age of puberty is fair sexual game for an adult of any age. That would be about eleven years old for girls and about twelve to thirteen for boys.

    Posted by FROMREDBIRD 10/04/2006 @ 10:35pm

    It, is, however, pointless continuing to argue with a liar whose only debating strategy is to repeatedly misrepresent the clearly stated position of his adversary, so I'm not going to bother - I've put you on "ignore".

    Posted by NIKOLAS 10/04/2006 @ 11:23pm

    You very clearly implied that below the age of puberty is pedophilia and above the age of puberty is just "gayness". I disagree. You're even implying that it's a mindless witchhunt to say otherwise.

    And, thanks again to everyone who wants to bring the great unwashed American public up to professional psychiatric standards terminology-wise but I would like to inform you that the American public has not yet applied for the position of attending physician. The definition in a dozen dictionaries is more than adequate as evidenced by the public reaction. Believe it or not, language definitions were derived first from people not from the American Psychiatric Association which appeared, oh, maybe two millenia or more after pedophiles were first taken note of. The APA's recent delineation and terminolgical recharacterization by age groups is being characterized as a free pass when it's nothing more than a professional descriptive differentiation.

    I wasn't aware, anyway, that someone surrendered to the APA the right to determine morality for the entire human race in addition to treating mental illness. Maybe you were.

    The dancing around the edges is getting humorous. It's especially humorous seeing a discussion group where so many were asserting that the immaturity of 18-yr-olds was allowing them to be emotionally victimized into serving in the armed forces of our country by a recruiter who does his or her job in the public square but who apparently don't think those same children would have been in danger of being emotionally and mentally manipulated by a 52-yr-old child sex fiend two years earlier.

    Posted by fromredbird at 10/05/2006 @ 02:11am

  182. my son just turned 16 and he is no child, nor is he an adult. he is an adolescent.

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 10/04/2006 @ 11:11pm

    So, you don't think of him as your child, you think of him as an adolescent? That seems a little weird to me since the first refers to a personal offspring and the second refers to the age of a human being, any human being, not necessarily the one you produced. I have no idea how impersonal your relationship with your offspring is but it's expressed in a more intimate manner by most people.

    The page was 16-yrs-old. If someone considers that fair game for a 52-yr-old sex fiend they have a problem.

    There are resources available online that provide the definitions of words, by the way.

    Posted by fromredbird at 10/05/2006 @ 02:30am

  183. That post was 97% hyperbole about how Fromredbird is:

    dishonest, irrational, creepy, two-faced, full of crap, prejudiced, siding with the moral majority, homophobic, disinterested in psychology as a whole, bigoted, unwise, faithful to lynch mobs, prejudiced (again), and a liar...

    Posted by NEW DAWN 10/04/2006 @ 11:35pm

    All in a day's work. It's more funny than anything else.

    Posted by fromredbird at 10/05/2006 @ 02:34am

  184. Posted by NEW DAWN 10/04/2006 @ 11:35pm

    It also seems to be a rule of thumb at online discussion groups that the less you call someone names the more thay call you names.

    Posted by fromredbird at 10/05/2006 @ 02:46am

  185. Fox News is already re-writing Foley as a Democrat. It will be a miracle if the Republican Crime Syndicate allows the Democrats to win either house in the next election. I predict that the Republicans will fix the elections to maintain their majority by 1 or 2 in each branch. That is a Rove standard. Then they will continue on party lines to shove through all their neo-conned-again criminal agenda like torture bills and enabling acts for two more years at least, and probably 2 more wars. The fact that Bush and Rummy allowed all the munitions dumps in Iraq to be looted means he is directly responsible for all the deaths caused by that choice. Sorry to get off topic, but isn't this just another distraction from the real murder and looting occurring every day.

    Posted by tom bombadil at 10/05/2006 @ 03:02am

  186. Like I said earlier, if any 52-year old, male or female, hit on my 16-year old, asked them if they were hard, or wanking it, or talked about slipping their shorts off while drinking somewhere they wouldn't get "busted", well, that would be "wrong", and we would all have us a little a problem, to say the very least.

    Posted by NEW DAWN 10/04/2006 @ 11:12pm

    Well, New Dawn (actually, I think I'll call you Mrs Moral Majority - I think it suits you better), I shouldn't have to repeat this, but I've already stated, several times, very clearly, that in my opinion Foley's behaviour was distasteful, offensive, inappropriate, and an example of workplace sexual harrassment. That sounds like pretty comprehensive (&, above all, appropriate) diaspproval to me.

    But let's look at what seems to be another issue here, not altogether directly related, but continually referenced by people like you - the subject of "an older man and a younger boy". Yes, I agree that the young and possibly vulnerable age of the boys involved is part of what makes Foley's unsolicited advances objectionable.

    But as for the broader question of mutually consenting relationships between older people and younger people - not relevant to the Foley situation, but lurking behind the background in a lot of the disagreements in the subsequent debate - let me spell out my position as clearly as possible. It may be instructive to you, because outside of America, it's regarded as a very standard, classic liberal position:

    In regard to sexual relationships, where both partners are above the legal age of consent, and both partners are consenting, I have no objection, in principle, to those sexual relationships. No ifs, no buts, no maybes - the only age consideration is that both partners be above the legal age of consent, and if that's the case, they can do whatever they consent to, and it's none of my business.

    Now, just why it should be that this is apparently NOT a standard liberal position in the USA, when it is everywhere else in the world, is one of those mysteries that I can't solve. But if Mrs Moral majority and her ilk continue to misrepresent this position as a "pedophile" stance, in all but "technical name", I can only assume that they're as demented as my American friends tell me they are.

    Posted by Nikolas at 10/05/2006 @ 05:51am

  187. It's especially humorous seeing a discussion group where so many were asserting that the immaturity of 18-yr-olds was allowing them to be emotionally victimized into serving in the armed forces of our country by a recruiter who does his or her job in the public square but who apparently don't think those same children would have been in danger of being emotionally and mentally manipulated by a 52-yr-old child sex fiend two years earlier.

    Posted by FROMREDBIRD 10/05/2006 @ 02:11am

    Okay, you get the privilege of another Nikolas reply, but only because I'm bored. The complete lack of any substance to your arguments is all too clear from the above statement, because:

    a) I have (as I have to keep repeating, because my opponents CONTINUALLY ignore and misrepresent my real position on this issue) expressed serious disapproval of Foley's behaviour, not condoned it in any way. But "FROMREDBIRD"s statement above once again tries to make it seem that I don't think there was anything wrong with Foley's behaviour.

    b) I have never expressed an opinion here in regard to 18 year-olds serving in the armed forces, and indeed, I have no objection at all to 18 year-olds serving in the armed forces (or 16 year-olds, for that matter, if they want to).

    Posted by Nikolas at 10/05/2006 @ 06:34am

  188. I wasn't aware, anyway, that someone surrendered to the APA the right to determine morality for the entire human race in addition to treating mental illness. Maybe you were.

    If Democrats really do mean that the words they are throwing around - terms like like "pervert" and "pedophile" - are supposed to be interpreted as moral judgments, not realistic descriptive terms, then they are admitting that their standards of moral argument really just amount to name-calling, on a par with the religious fundamentalist Right.

    You very clearly implied that below the age of puberty is pedophilia and above the age of puberty is just "gayness"

    Not at all. An adult sexually attracted to children below the age of puberty is a pedophile. An adult sexually attracted to people in their late teens and early twenties is just a typical adult. This does not, of course, mean that actually engaging in sexual relationships with people in their late teens and early twenties is very typical behaviour, except for people in that age range. However, relationships between people in that age range and older people are not uncommon, especially amongst gays. You are free to approve or disapprove of such relationships, but if you expect your disapproval to be taken seriously as moral argument, it will have to take a more sophisticated form than empty name-calling, especially when those names refer to sexual perversions. And surely even someone living in the current American climate of sexual conservatism can see how extremist it would be to "morally" describe, say, a relationship between a 40 year old and a 20 year old as a "pedophile" relationship - even our hard religious Right here in Australia would regard that as going way over the top.

    Posted by Nikolas at 10/05/2006 @ 07:20am

  189. How sad is it that Foley has to use the excuse of being gay, alcoholism, and being molested by Priests to make excuses for what he did. Mr. Foley said that was not at excuse for what he did. If these were not issues, why did he mention them in the first place. The Gay community should be outraged by this. Rep Hastert and his Republican cronies who knew about this are hypocrits and should resign.

    Posted by gregppp at 10/05/2006 @ 07:34am

  190. MASK GET REAL..I WANT YOU TO TELL ME MORE ABOUT KILLING BABIES AND GAY MARRAIGES..MABE YOU PREFER WAITING UNTIL THEY ARE GROWN AND SENDING THEM OFF TO BE KILLED IN AN ILLEGAL WAR THAT WAS ORCHESTRATED ON A LIE. OH THE GAY MARRAIGES...I BELIEVE YOU ARE ONE OF THESE MEMBERS OF THE PARTY THAT IS OF HIGHER MORALS..I SEE EXAMPLES OF THIS EVERY FEW MINUTES ON TV AND THE INTRNET.. MABE YOU SHOULD TUNE IN. AS FOR GAY MARRAIGES AND ABORTIONS, DONT HAND ME THIS NONSENSE THAT ALL REPUBLICANS BELIEVE AS YOU DO. THERE ARE PROS AND CONS IN BOTH PARTIES

    Posted by FRASER at 10/05/2006 @ 08:00am

  191. That seems a little weird to me since the first refers to a personal offspring and the second refers to the age of a human being, any human being,

    what nonsense. I describe my son as an adolescent. he is still my son, he will always be my son, even at age 80 he will still be my son. he is no longer a child.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/05/2006 @ 08:19am

  192. fine posts, Nikolas. and New Dawn is a man, as he has acknowledged, not that it makes any difference here.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/05/2006 @ 08:23am

  193. Posted by FRASER 10/05/2006 @ 08:00am

    What the hell are you talking about?

    I'm pro-gay rights and pro-choice and against the war in Iraq.

    Geez, atleast the whiners who hate my posts, but love to TALK about my posts, make more sense that you did!

    Posted by Mask at 10/05/2006 @ 09:05am

  194. The most disturbing part of this is how so many media muppets, politicians and spokespersons have been allowed to seamlessly conflate homosexuality with pederasty. They are not the same thing just as heterosexuality does not by definition include a proclivity for seducing teens of the opposite sex. One helmet-headed republican (I forget which) went so far as to say that they had done nothing about Foley's proclivities because they feared being accused of gay-bashing. This is not about sexual orientation and should be allowed to become that - it is about boundaries and a presumed grown up abusing the power of his office to prey on youngsters.

    Posted by cpoh at 10/05/2006 @ 09:09am

  195. Posted by CPOH 10/05/2006 @ 09:09am

    John Nichols in his original article on Foley blamed his pedophilia on the fact that he "couldn't come out of the closet" for fear of losing his seat.

    Still waiting on the peer-reviewed psychology studies that prove that theory though.

    Posted by Mask at 10/05/2006 @ 09:17am

  196. Think about ranking the ickyness

    Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 10/05/2006 @ 09:22am

    I would have hoped that supposedly sophisticated, 21st century Western citizens could form a rational liberal perspective on other people's sexual choices, when those people are above the age of consent, without having to rely on (or even refer to) an "ickyness" factor.

    Posted by Nikolas at 10/05/2006 @ 10:02am

  197. Nikolas, you must remember that you are dealing with a repressed puritan culture here. when the accidental exposure of a female breast raises a firestorm, you can see that the whole country is Kansas.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/05/2006 @ 10:09am

  198. The most disturbing part of this is how so many media muppets, politicians and spokespersons have been allowed to seamlessly conflate homosexuality with pederasty.

    Posted by CPOH 10/05/2006 @ 09:09am

    The most disturbing part for me, is how a middle-aged man sending smutty emails to an 18 year-old is being described as an example of "pedophile" behaviour by people like you. Because this just reinforces, in the public mind, the idea that older homosexual men who have relationships with younger homosexual men are actually "pedophiles".

    I'm not suggesting that the younger man in this instance was homosexual or that he solicited or welcomed the lewd advances, and I have in fact strongly disapproved of Foley's behaviour. But I, as a gay man, feel no need to describe Foley as a pedophile.

    My partner and I met when he was 18 and I was 37. We have been together 7 years now and hope for many more years of happy life together. But in the eyes of many of the pretend "liberals" here, that relationship makes me a predator and a pedophile.

    Posted by Nikolas at 10/05/2006 @ 10:14am

  199. Did Foley actually have sex as Studds or is he accused of using emails to solicit sex?

    He makes me phyiscaly ill and if he was pursuing my 15 year old I would be inclined to settle this out of court...and didn't Studds NOT resign and was re-elected? maybe you are to hard on the Repuibs due to over flow of hate...

    Posted by john maasch at 10/05/2006 @ 10:23am

  200. Nikolas, you must remember that you are dealing with a repressed puritan culture here

    So my American friends keep telling me, Johannesrolf, but it's still pretty disorientating when I find it in supposedly liberal-left contexts like this :)

    Posted by Nikolas at 10/05/2006 @ 10:23am

  201. JOHANNES,

    I ARRIVE IN NY OCT 28 IF YOU WANT A FREE MEAL AND GOOD CONVERSATION

    Posted by john maasch at 10/05/2006 @ 10:27am

  202. Maasch, that sounds fine, talk to me around then.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/05/2006 @ 10:37am

  203. OK

    Posted by john maasch at 10/05/2006 @ 10:39am

  204. I wondered where Karl Rogue was in all this, and then I heard Bill O'Reilly was already calling Mark Foley a Democrat on the next news day. Watch out for their usual murder, abuse, theft, lying and cheating. We know their game plan. We need to counter it. Expose the lies.

    Posted by tom bombadil at 10/05/2006 @ 10:58am

  205. Well, New Dawn (actually, I think I'll call you Mrs Moral Majority - I think it suits you better)...

    Posted by NIKOLAS 10/05/2006 @ 05:51am

    Well, gee, I guess I'll just call you "asshole".

    You don't know jack shit about me, Nikolas - you just got here, and anyone who has read more than two of my posts knows that I am as far from the Moral Majority as they get.

    You talk an awful lot, dude, but you don't say much.

    Posted by New Dawn at 10/05/2006 @ 11:40am

  206. Posted by NIKOLAS 10/05/2006 @ 06:34am

    Redbird wasn't talking about you. You seem to have a bit of a narcissism complex.

    Posted by New Dawn at 10/05/2006 @ 11:49am

  207. The most disturbing part of this is how so many media muppets, politicians and spokespersons have been allowed to seamlessly conflate homosexuality with pederasty. They are not the same thing just as heterosexuality does not by definition include a proclivity for seducing teens of the opposite sex. One helmet-headed republican (I forget which) went so far as to say that they had done nothing about Foley's proclivities because they feared being accused of gay-bashing. This is not about sexual orientation and should be allowed to become that - it is about boundaries and a presumed grown up abusing the power of his office to prey on youngsters.

    Posted by CPOH 10/05/2006 @ 09:09am

    Excellent post.

    Posted by New Dawn at 10/05/2006 @ 11:52am

  208. Posted by NIKOLAS 10/05/2006 @ 10:14am

    CPOH's post didn't refer to pedophiles, but to pederasty, and how it could be conflated with homosexuality (which CPOH actually argued against), a worry yourself expressed in an earlier post.

    Yet, you insisted on commenting on his post by reverting back to how the use of the term "pedophile" is hurting gays.

    Are you even reading people's posts before you comment on them, or did you come in here with an agenda?

    And for the record, yeah, I think a 37-year old so unable to interact emotionally and romantically with his own age group and moving down to 18-year olds has issues.

    Come to think of it, put me on your iggy list, too, Nikolas.

    Posted by New Dawn at 10/05/2006 @ 11:59am

  209. Nikolas, you must remember that you are dealing with a repressed puritan culture here. when the accidental exposure of a female breast raises a firestorm, you can see that the whole country is Kansas.

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 10/05/2006 @ 10:09am

    A very fair point.

    Though I thought Janet's boob was kind of boring, myself. :)

    Posted by New Dawn at 10/05/2006 @ 12:01pm

  210. And for the record, yeah, I think a 37-year old so unable to interact emotionally and romantically with his own age group and moving down to 18-year olds has issues.

    Come to think of it, put me on your iggy list, too, Nikolas.

    Posted by NEW DAWN 10/05/2006 @ 11:59am

    Last comment for a bit...

    Nikolas -

    I am 36, and though I see some 18-year olds that I think are pretty hot, and I know some who are also pretty intelligent and mature, I just plain wouldn't feel right about engaging in sexual relations with them.

    Call it my personal hangup, but don't whitewash the left or other Americans or anybody else by that.

    It's only my opinion.

    Posted by New Dawn at 10/05/2006 @ 12:09pm

  211. One helmet-headed republican (I forget which) went so far as to say that they had done nothing about Foley's proclivities because they feared being accused of gay-bashing.

    it was Newt

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/05/2006 @ 12:23pm

  212. "And for the record, yeah, I think a 37-year old so unable to interact emotionally and romantically with his own age group and moving down to 18-year olds has issues."

    I couldn't disagree more. you really need to open up your mind to love. My spouse is 15 years my junior, she was 23 when we met. had she been 18, the result would surely have been the same. it is your prerogative to be closed minded, as it is mine to challenge you on that.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/05/2006 @ 12:28pm

  213. "And for the record, yeah, I think a 37-year old so unable to interact emotionally and romantically with his own age group and moving down to 18-year olds has issues."

    I couldn't disagree more. you really need to open up your mind to love. My spouse is 15 years my junior, she was 23 when we met. had she been 18, the result would surely have been the same. it is your prerogative to be closed minded, as it is mine to challenge you on that.

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 10/05/2006 @ 12:28am

    Johannes -

    Listen, bully for you and your beloved, I genuinely think that your story is lovely, and I'm glad you two got together, are happy together, and that your age difference means nothing to you but numbers...

    However,

    I also politely suggested earlier that you and I just agree to disagree, and you politely accepted. We had already established that we don't (and won't) agree on this topic. Yet here you go again.

    Okay. You went back on what you said, but okay. Have it your way.

    I find your "open your mind" comment very insulting, Johannes, but this isn't the first time you've claimed moral superiority and greater enlightenment over others here (as I and others have also done), so it doesn't surprise me.

    I am an adult, legally and otherwise, and can make my own decisions. You and your lady can and have done the same.

    But you have no idea where I've been, what I've done, or who I have been with over my own 36 years, 16 of them with a child of my own, to come the conclusions that I have about sexuality or love.

    Nor do I particularly feel like sharing all of those stories, some rather sordid by the standards of many, and some that would make many here scream "perv" at me.

    Believe me when I say that I have an extraordinarily open mind when it comes to sex and love, more than anyone here will ever (or would care to) know. However, we were talking earlier in the context of "children" and "minors" and "youths", etc. I draw explicit lines at the protection and exploitation of those who, to me, are "children", "minors", and "youths". You apparently do not.

    If you, Johannes, want to go hit on an 18-year old, knock yourself out. I won't bash you or spit at you or call you names, but I won't approve. And why should you care? Free country, right? You're free to chase youngsters, and I'm free not to like it.

    Nor does my own opinion affect you in any way unless you show up on my doorstep looking for my son.

    You feel perfectly fine labeling me as closed-minded, which is nothing but your opinion.

    Your "challenging" me won't change any of that.

    Posted by New Dawn at 10/05/2006 @ 12:55pm

  214. An adult sexually attracted to children below the age of puberty is a pedophile. An adult sexually attracted to people in their late teens and early twenties is just a typical adult. This does not, of course, mean that actually engaging in sexual relationships with people in their late teens and early twenties is very typical behaviour, except for people in that age range.

    Posted by NIKOLAS 10/05/2006 @ 07:20am

    The most disturbing part for me, is how a middle-aged man sending smutty emails to an 18 year-old is being described as an example of "pedophile" behaviour by people like you.

    Posted by NIKOLAS 10/05/2006 @ 10:14am

    The situation being discussed is a kid who was 16-yrs-old. If you insist that condemnation of unwanted and repulsive sexual advances directed to a 16-yr-old by a 52-yr-old is homophobia why are you changing the kid's age to "late teens to early twenties" and "18 year-old"? You're accusing others of being "liars"?

    Posted by fromredbird at 10/05/2006 @ 1:00pm

  215. I'm hearing it bandied about, Bird, that the actual sexually explicit communications went to an 18-year old, and the rather tame e-mails went to a 16-yr old.

    Of course, this story isn't over, and where there is smoke, there is often fire...

    We have no idea how many other youths the congressman corresponded with, nor what the context of that correspondence may have been...

    We'll see.

    Posted by New Dawn at 10/05/2006 @ 1:06pm

  216. they are all opinions here, new Dawn. if I recall it was you who accused someone else of having issues, so come off your high horse. you registered disapproval of someone else's choice, Mr Morality, why should someone, me, not do the same to you? and while last night's discussion was about 16 year olds, you scolded someone for forming a relationship with an 18 year old, which is a different matter.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/05/2006 @ 1:10pm

  217. "And for the record, yeah, I think a 37-year old so unable to interact emotionally and romantically with his own age group and moving down to 18-year olds has issues."

    you are taking a lot for granted here,ND. you are calling someone unable to interact with his own age group. since when is that a standard for anything. this is definitely a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/05/2006 @ 1:13pm

  218. I'm hearing it bandied about, Bird, that the actual sexually explicit communications went to an 18-year old, and the rather tame e-mails went to a 16-yr old.

    Of course, this story isn't over, and where there is smoke, there is often fire...

    We have no idea how many other youths the congressman corresponded with, nor what the context of that correspondence may have been...

    We'll see.

    Posted by NEW DAWN 10/05/2006 @ 1:06pm

    I haven't been following the story in great detail but this thread has been operating under the assumption throughout that the kid was 16-yrs-old, as first reported, and that was the age discussed throughout, also.

    Hard to keep up with Foley's e-mails- he was just seeking a human, loving relationship . . with every male between 16 to 18 that he could spot. Even House votes on the Iraq war weren't enough to slow him down. It must have been difficult to handle it all, even with the Republican Party doing every thing it could to help him.

    Posted by fromredbird at 10/05/2006 @ 1:17pm

  219. Okay, you get the privilege of another Nikolas reply, but only because I'm bored. The complete lack of any substance to your arguments is all too clear from the above statement, because:

    a) I have (as I have to keep repeating, because my opponents CONTINUALLY ignore and misrepresent my real position on this issue) expressed serious disapproval of Foley's behaviour, not condoned it in any way. But "FROMREDBIRD"s statement above once again tries to make it seem that I don't think there was anything wrong with Foley's behaviour.

    b) I have never expressed an opinion here in regard to 18 year-olds serving in the armed forces, and indeed, I have no objection at all to 18 year-olds serving in the armed forces (or 16 year-olds, for that matter, if they want to).

    Posted by NIKOLAS 10/05/2006 @ 06:34am

    Thanks for the "privilege". At least you can have a high opinion of yourself.

    First of all, on b), I was not referring to you, as someone else already pointed out. How could I be if this is the first day you've been here and I clearly referred to the past. A little basic reasoning does wonders.

    On a), I didn't misrepresent anything. Your "serious disapproval", after posting rationalizations of "old man/young kid sex" all day yesterday, amounted to this:

    I shouldn't have to repeat this, but I've already stated, several times, very clearly, that in my opinion Foley's behaviour was distasteful, offensive, inappropriate, and an example of workplace sexual harrassment. That sounds like pretty comprehensive (&, above all, appropriate) diaspproval to me.

    But let's look at what seems to be another issue here, not altogether directly related, but continually referenced by people like you - the subject of "an older man and a younger boy". Yes, I agree that the young and possibly vulnerable age of the boys involved is part of what makes Foley's unsolicited advances objectionable . .

    Posted by NIKOLAS 10/05/2006 @ 05:51am

    Was Foley's behavior, by a 52-yr-old directed at a 16-yr-old, "distasteful, offensive, inappropriate" only because it occurred in the workplace? Would it be appropriate elsewhere? Why don't you go ahead and say what you think? I have.

    Posted by fromredbird at 10/05/2006 @ 1:41pm

  220. Homosexual attraction to minors? I've never heard of such a thing.

    As far as Democrat attacts are concerned, this one is both brilliant and disgusting at the same time. We are witnessing pure, unfiltered politics at its best (or worst). A reenactment of great political dirty deeds such as Thomas Jefferson and Callander.

    Democrats aren't going to waste time or run the risk of debating issues this close to elections. For now, they'll stick to the basics -- A swift kick in the balls.

    Posted by Person at 10/05/2006 @ 1:43pm

  221. Anna Fry, a former House page who said she had never heard about Foley's advances, said some of her classmates may have been tempted to correspond with the congressman after they left because they were eager to land jobs on Capitol Hill.

    "After we graduated, everyone wanted to come back. Everyone was looking for an opportunity to stay in Washington," Fry said. "I can see how a 16-year-old would be vulnerable to that."

    http://tinyurl.com/j3gaf

    Excerpted from a New York Post piece by Niles Lathem:

    ...In another stunning development, Robert Novak today reveals in his column - published in PostOpinion on Page 31 - that even after House GOP leaders knew that Foley had written an inappropriate e-mail to a 16-year-old former male page, they were still urging him to seek re-election.

    Posted by fromredbird at 10/05/2006 @ 1:47pm

  222. they are all opinions here, new Dawn. if I recall it was you who accused someone else of having issues, so come off your high horse. you registered disapproval of someone else's choice, Mr Morality, why should someone, me, not do the same to you? and while last night's discussion was about 16 year olds, you scolded someone for forming a relationship with an 18 year old, which is a different matter.

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 10/05/2006 @ 1:10pm | ignore this person

    Nice pass on how you agreed to disagree and let it go, but are still pursuing me, citing how I registered my disapproval, so why shouldn't you do the same to me... All that means is that you can't keep your word. Good to know.

    And the "Mr. Morality" thing - That's just plain funny. You and Nikolas are the only people I have ever met in 36 years who have ever accused me of being such a thing.

    You obviously didn't read my previous post to you, or just don't care to take account of anything I've said but that with which you have issues.

    As a 36-year old who wouldn't hit on youths, I said that I personally think that a 37-year old unable to interact emotionally and romantically with his own age group and moving down to 18-year olds has issues. That's wrong to you, but perfectly plausible to me. That's why I politely suggested we just agree to disagree.

    I don't believe that having such a personal opinion puts me on any high horse. I believe that it means that I have a personal set of values that many agree with - 20, 30, 40 year age differences in relationships are unusual and generally frowned upon, after all - but you knew that.

    If, in your world of it being okay to hit on youths, my personal disapproval of May-December relationships makes me a bad guy, I can live with that. I still personally think that your excusing and rationalizing such behavior to the extent you're reaching for, to be honest, is pretty gross. It makes me wonder how young would be okay with you.

    you are taking a lot for granted here,ND. you are calling someone unable to interact with his own age group. since when is that a standard for anything. this is definitely a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 10/05/2006 @ 1:13pm

    Do you even know what that phrase means?

    In order for me to be "calling the kettle black", I would have to be unable to interact with my own age group and moving down to hit on those 20 years my junior. That isn't the case.

    I choose to interact with my own age group and not to hit on youths twenty years my junior. That hardly makes me the kettle.

    Your rhetoric seems geared to defend May-December relationships (to the extreme?), and your badgering me won't change that.

    I've tried many times to stay cordial with you because we share some political leanings, but you're getting on my nerves, especially when I ask if we can agree to disagree, then you go back on your word and badger me anyway.

    I would appreciate it if you would leave me alone now. I asked you politely once, and am about to ask not so nicely.

    Posted by New Dawn at 10/05/2006 @ 1:53pm

  223. I haven't been following the story in great detail but this thread has been operating under the assumption throughout that the kid was 16-yrs-old, as first reported, and that was the age discussed throughout, also.

    Hard to keep up with Foley's e-mails- he was just seeking a human, loving relationship . . with every male between 16 to 18 that he could spot. Even House votes on the Iraq war weren't enough to slow him down. It must have been difficult to handle it all, even with the Republican Party doing every thing it could to help him.

    Posted by FROMREDBIRD 10/05/2006 @ 1:17pm

    Totally understood. I went back over some of my own posts and realized I was operating under the same assumption (that all of the sex talk was with a 16-year old, which was uninformed and unfair), but as I've also said, it's still inappropriate behavior between the congressman and pages.

    Posted by New Dawn at 10/05/2006 @ 1:56pm

  224. And surely even someone living in the current American climate of sexual conservatism can see how extremist it would be to "morally" describe, say, a relationship between a 40 year old and a 20 year old as a "pedophile" relationship - even our hard religious Right here in Australia would regard that as going way over the top.

    Posted by NIKOLAS 10/05/2006 @ 07:20am

    That isn't a bad counterargument but some of us may be wondering where the argument was. Or, maybe you prefer discussions where you have the role of ventriloquist who gets to make other people say what you want them to say.

    Posted by fromredbird at 10/05/2006 @ 2:00pm

  225. I'm reading the ABC web article in which "the oldest of the five Amish girls shot dead in a Pennsylvania schoolhouse is said to have stepped forward and asked her killer to "Shoot me first," in an apparent effort to buy time for her schoolmates. What's more, Fisher's younger sister, Barbie, who survived the shooting, allegedly asked the gunman, Charles Carl Roberts IV, to "Shoot me second," Rhoads said."

    Contrast that with the current situation involving the Speaker of the House and his thuggish cohorts, who can't seem to bring themselves to even come clean on telling the truth for fear that they may lose their precious Republican majority or their jobs.

    There are brave heros and then there are disgraceful louts.

    Posted by The Vise at 10/05/2006 @ 2:12pm

  226. As a 36-year old who wouldn't hit on youths, I said that I personally think that a 37-year old unable to interact emotionally and romantically with his own age group and moving down to 18-year olds has issues.

    I don't believe that having such a personal opinion puts me on any high horse. I believe that it means that I have a personal set of values that many agree with - 20, 30, 40 year age differences in relationships are unusual and generally frowned upon

    I choose to interact with my own age group and not to hit on youths twenty years my junior.

    Posted by NEW DAWN 10/05/2006 @ 1:53pm

    I don't want to intrude on your discussion with the "swan among ducklings" (self-described) but just extract a few of your comments for response.

    My opinion is based on the age of the younger person rather than the age difference. Sixteen is way too young to assume that someone can make a wise, informed, and appropriate decision about their life. A bad sexual experience that was the result of naivete can scar someone for life. That is worlds different than "driving a car". An eight-year-old has enough experience to know that it's not a good idea to collide with another car.

    I don't think that most 20-yr-olds are capable of really wise decisions but the line has to be set somewhere and that seems reasonable to me as an age of consent, which is not exclusively a sexual term but related to contracts, etc. I could see someone disagreeing and saying 18 is old enough but 16 is ridiculous. I also don't think it's a bad idea to have the age of consent be also regulated by the age of the other party when the relationship is sexual. A 21-yr-old having sex with a 17-yr-old may not be a good idea but I don't think it should be criminal. I think a 52-yr-old having or attempting to have sex with a 16-yr-old should be criminal. It's a question of manipulative ability and potential callous disregard of the best interests of the younger partner. I see nothing wrong with a relationship between a 20-yr-old and a 40 or 50-yr-old. If someone isn't grown up enough by the age of 20 to make decisions like that then they have a problem that may be more personal than social.

    Posted by fromredbird at 10/05/2006 @ 2:49pm

  227. Posted by THE VISE 10/05/2006 @ 2:12pm

    I wasn't aware of that (the Amish girls, I mean, not the Republican louses). Why didn't the men and boys refuse to leave the girls alone with an armed man? That's what I have been wondering. Once again, females display more character and bravery than men.

    Posted by fromredbird at 10/05/2006 @ 2:52pm

  228. An Atlanta man told a local television station and newspaper that former U.S. Rep. Mark Foley sent him sexually suggestive messages after he served as a congressional page 10 years ago.

    Tyson Vivyan, 26, of Buckhead told WAGA-TV in a Wednesday interview that Foley began sending him instant messages about a month or two after his nine-month stint as a page ended in June 1997.

    Vivyan told the station that when he was a congressional page in 1996 and 1997 he barely spoke to Foley. But after he left the program -- when he was 17 years old -- Vivian says they had contact via e-mail about things he says where inappropriate.

    http://tinyurl.com/prxdu

    If someone wants to they can start a new Man/Boy chapter here, but Foley is weird.

    Posted by fromredbird at 10/05/2006 @ 3:06pm

  229. Posted by FROMREDBIRD 10/05/2006 @ 2:49pm

    Very sound, and I don't disagree with one word of what you posted.

    And perhaps I should have added that 20-30-40 year gaps in relationships don't get under my skin so much when both participants are out of their teens, for Christ's sake...

    Not that that will likely make one whit of difference to those who insist on calling me a member of the Moral Majority - the next time my lady and I take on a new girlfriend, as we do every couple of years, it will make us all laugh when I let them know I'm a member.

    Posted by New Dawn at 10/05/2006 @ 3:09pm

  230. This was always likely to turn into a queer witch hunt, with the Democrats finally getting to play a role they've quietly coveted for a long time - that of Queer Witch-Finder General.

    The real losers, unfortunately, will be the American gay community. Although many were already fairly cynical about the Democrats, it's clear now that there is no mainstream US political party that's willing to resist the temptation of wooing the homophobic majority by putting the boot into queers whenever it's politically convenient - and that's most of the time, in today's climate of paranoid sexual conservatism.

    Posted by NIKOLAS 10/03/2006 @ 7:43pm

    Just to set the record straight, this is where the conversation that led to a discussion of age started. You made no distiction whatsoever between Foley's sexual attempts aimed at a 16-yr-old and his "gayness". The criticism of Foley is for his salacious behavior with a 16-yr-old, not because he is "gay". This post of yours immediately followed mine below:

    His gayness is an issue most especially in regard to the bigoted party which he represents. His pedophilia is an issue in regard to society in general. Different issues. Both significant but in different ways.

    And, of course, the Republican Party's astounding hypocrisy is an issue related to both.

    Posted by FROMREDBIRD 10/03/2006 @ 6:27pm

    If you're calling people like me bigots then the Democratic Party is probably much better off without people like you.

    Posted by fromredbird at 10/05/2006 @ 3:25pm

  231. Not that that will likely make one whit of difference to those who insist on calling me a member of the Moral Majority - the next time my lady and I take on a new girlfriend, as we do every couple of years, it will make us all laugh when I let them know I'm a member.

    Posted by NEW DAWN 10/05/2006 @ 3:09pm

    I don't care for that but suit yourself. Does that make me the Moral Minority? Hee, hee.

    It has occurred to me that it may be third parties who are the bigots. More of the old "with us or against us" claptrap. When someone finds they are a tiny minority among what is already a minority then the first thing they should think is, "is it possible I'm wrong"?

    Posted by fromredbird at 10/05/2006 @ 3:33pm

  232. WHO KNEW CONGRESSMAN FOLEY WAS A CLOSETED DEMOCRAT? October 4, 2006

    At least liberals are finally exhibiting a moral compass about something. I am sure that they'd be equally outraged if Rep. Mark Foley were a Democrat.

    The object lesson of Foley's inappropriate e-mails to male pages is that when a Republican congressman is caught in a sex scandal, he immediately resigns and crawls off into a hole in abject embarrassment. Democrats get snippy.

    Foley didn't claim he was the victim of a "witch-hunt." He didn't whine that he was a put-upon "gay American." He didn't stay in Congress and haughtily rebuke his critics. He didn't run for re-election. He certainly didn't claim he was "saving the Constitution." (Although his recent discovery that he has a drinking problem has a certain Democratic ring to it.)

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

    When the House censured Studds for his sex romp with a male page, Studds -- not one to be shy about presenting his backside to a large group of men -- defiantly turned his back on the House during the vote. He ran for re-election and was happily returned to office five more times by liberal Democratic voters in his Martha's Vineyard district. (They really liked his campaign slogan: "It's the outfit, stupid.")

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

    Meanwhile, Foley is hiding in a hole someplace.

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

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

    Let's run this past the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals: The suspect sent an inappropriately friendly e-mail to a teenager -- oh also, we think he's gay. Can we spy on his instant messages? On a scale of 1 to 10, what are the odds that any court in the nation would have said: YOU BET! Put a tail on that guy -- and a credit check, too!

    When Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee found unprotected e-mails from the Democrats about their plan to oppose Miguel Estrada's judicial nomination because he was Hispanic, Democrats erupted in rage that their e-mails were being read. The Republican staffer responsible was forced to resign.

    But Democrats are on their high horses because Republicans in the House did not immediately wiretap Foley's phones when they found out he was engaging in e-mail chitchat with a former page about what the kid wanted for his birthday.

    The Democrats say the Republicans should have done all the things Democrats won't let us do to al-Qaida -- solely because Foley was rumored to be gay. Maybe we could get Democrats to support the NSA wiretapping program if we tell them the terrorists are gay.

    On Fox News' "Hannity and Colmes" Monday night, Democrat Bob Beckel said a gay man should be kept away from male pages the same way Willie Sutton should have been kept away from banks. "If Willie Sutton is around some place where a bank is robbed," Beckel said, "then you're probably going to say, 'Willie, stay away from the robbery.'"

    Hmmmm, let's search the memory bank. In July 2000, the New York Times "ethicist" Randy Cohen advised a reader that pulling her son out of the Cub Scouts because they exclude gay scoutmasters was "the ethical thing to do." The "ethicist" explained: "Just as one is honor bound to quit an organization that excludes African-Americans, so you should withdraw from scouting as long as it rejects homosexuals."

    We need to get a rulebook from the Democrats:

    -- Boy Scouts: As gay as you want to be.

    -- Priests: No gays!

    -- Democratic politicians: Proud gay Americans.

    -- Republican politicians: Presumed guilty.

    -- White House press corps: No gays, unless they hate Bush.

    -- Active-duty U.S. military: As gay as possible.

    -- Men who date Liza Minelli: Do I have to draw you a picture, Miss Thing?

    This is the very definition of political opportunism. If Republicans had decided to spy on Foley for sending overly friendly e-mails to pages, Democrats would have been screaming about a Republican witch-hunt against gays. But if they don't, they're enabling a sexual predator.

    Talk to us Monday. Either we'll be furious that Republicans violated the man's civil rights, or we'll be furious that they didn't.

    COPYRIGHT 2006 ANN COULTER

    Posted by looneylefties at 10/05/2006 @ 3:40pm

  233. XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX THU OCT 5 2006 2:53:48 ET XXXXX

    CLAIM: FILTHY FOLEY ONLINE MESSAGES WERE PAGE PRANK GONE AWRY **World Exclusive** **Must Credit the DRUDGE REPORT**

    According to two people close to former congressional page Jordan Edmund, the now famous lurid AOL Instant Message exchanges that led to the resignation of Mark Foley were part of an online prank that by mistake got into the hands of enemy political operatives, the DRUDGE REPORT can reveal.

    According to one Oklahoma source who knows the former page very well, Edmund, a conservative Republican, goaded an unwitting Foley to type embarrassing comments that were then shared with a small group of young Hill politicos. The prank went awry when the saved IM sessions got into the hands of political operatives favorable to Democrats.

    The primary source, an ally of Edmund, adamantly proclaims that the former page is not a homosexual. The prank scenario was confirmed by a second associate of Edmund. Both are fearful that their political careers will be affected if they are publicly brought into the matter.

    The prank scenario only applies to the Edmund IM sessions and does not necessarily apply to any other exchanges between the former congressman and others.

    The news come on the heels that Edmund has hired former Timothy McVeigh attorney, Stephen Jones.

    Developing...

    Posted by looneylefties at 10/05/2006 @ 3:41pm

  234. Posted by LOONEYLEFTIES 10/05/2006 @ 3:40pm

    Hey, congratulations, a new record- on the ignore list in three minutes flat. That's what happens when you post trash that you found from animals like Ann Coulter. Here's a photo of you looking for it. [tinyurl.com]

    Posted by fromredbird at 10/05/2006 @ 3:46pm

  235. Foley singlehandedly turned this blog into a magnet for weirdness.

    Posted by fromredbird at 10/05/2006 @ 3:48pm

  236. And my previously very lonely iggy list (only Rese and Plunger for almost two years) grows...

    Bye, Aludra/LibzSuck/Looneylefties... never learn, will you?

    Posted by New Dawn at 10/05/2006 @ 3:57pm

  237. ABC ONLINE GLITCH LEADS TO IDENTITY OF FOLEY ACCUSER

    FAMOUS IM EXCHANGE WAS WITH 18 YEAR OLD

    **UPDATE Thu Oct 05 2006 11:54:13 ET

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

    The website PASSIONATE AMERICA detailed the startling exposure late Wednesday.

    MORE

    The PASSIONATE AMERICA webmaster tells the OKLAHOMAN that "he stumbled onto the former page's AOL screen name when looking at transcripts of the instant messages on ABC's Web site on Saturday. He said he typed a slightly-different Web address into his browser and found a version of the transcript with the screen name.

    The AOL name of the young man was kept unredacted and housed on ABCNEWS.COM servers for 5 days!

    The information could be publicly accessed.

    ABC explains in a statement: "On Friday, ABC News published instant messages between a former page and Congressman Foley with the IM screen name of the teenage victim redacted. Immediately, we discovered that in one instance, the screen name of the teen on one IM exchange had not been properly redacted. ABC News immediately took down the posting [version 1], redacted the screen name and re-published the posting [version 2]. We certainly believed that we had taken care of the issue quickly. Last evening, after an inquiry from Matt Drudge, it came to our attention that a blogger was able to access our deleted file [version 1] by typing in a slightly modified web address. To be clear, no one visiting our website would have simply stumbled on the old version."

    SEX CHAT WAS WITH 18 YEAR OLD

    On Tuesday ABC news released a high-impact instant message exchange between Foley and, as ABC explained, a young man "under the age of 18."

    ABC headlined the story: "New Foley Instant Messages; Had Internet Sex While Awaiting House Vote"

    But upon reviewing the records, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned, the young man was in fact over the age of 18 at the time of the exchange.

    A network source explains, messages with the young man and disgraced former Congressman Foley took place before and after the 18th birthday.

    Developing...

    Posted by looneylefties at 10/05/2006 @ 5:25pm

  238. Believe me when I say that I have an extraordinarily open mind when it comes to sex and love

    Posted by MRS MORAL MAJORITY 10/05/2006 @ 12:55am

    Why on Earth should we believe such contemptible nonsense, so clearly contradicted by your own stated views? You really are extraordinarily self-deluded.

    But you're also now on my ignore list, so by bothering to address me, you'll only be wasting your own time :)

    When someone finds they are a tiny minority among what is already a minority then the first thing they should think is, "is it possible I'm wrong"

    If you're referring to me, you're very wrong, but it seems there are plenty of straights here who are are willing to appoint themselves experts on gay relationships, without knowing anything at all about gay people. Relationships between younger men and older men are quite common amongst homosexuals. This is why the attempts by conservative Democrats to instantly "redefine" homosexuality so as to bring it into line with the most conservative heterosexual mores are not only offensive, but really quite frightening.

    The Democrats lurch to the Right on this issue because it's politically convenient for them to do so, and everyone else is expected to follow them. I think they'll find they're leaving a lot of people behind, who will no longer be following them anywhere.

    But I've expressed my concern, and I'm not going to waste any more time on the issue. I'm neither American nor a Democrat, anyway :)

    Posted by Nikolas at 10/05/2006 @ 6:34pm

  239. If you're referring to me, you're very wrong, but it seems there are plenty of straights here who are are willing to appoint themselves experts on gay relationships, without knowing anything at all about gay people. Relationships between younger men and older men are quite common amongst homosexuals. This is why the attempts by conservative Democrats to instantly "redefine" homosexuality so as to bring it into line with the most conservative heterosexual mores are not only offensive, but really quite frightening.

    The Democrats lurch to the Right on this issue because it's politically convenient for them to do so, and everyone else is expected to follow them. I think they'll find they're leaving a lot of people behind, who will no longer be following them anywhere.

    Make your point by showing me some proof that relationships between 52-yr-old men and 16-yr-old boys is "quite common among homosexuals".

    But I've expressed my concern, and I'm not going to waste any more time on the issue. I'm neither American nor a Democrat, anyway :)

    Posted by NIKOLAS 10/05/2006 @ 6:34pm

    Makes us both happy :)

    Posted by fromredbird at 10/05/2006 @ 7:07pm

  240. That asshole Foley is a real double threat- he wasn't satisfied with blaming the Catholic Church for his repulsive behavior he had to give alcoholics a bad name, too. Maybe I'm upset because I just dribbled beer on my shirt but the drumbeats of this alcoholic witch-hunt have me unnerved.

    Posted by fromredbird at 10/05/2006 @ 7:14pm

  241. Relationships between 16 year-olds and middle-aged men are not common (although I had a relationship with a middle-aged man starting at the age of 17), for understandable reasons (16-year-old gays tend to be very limited in regard to the number of other gay people they know, of any age, and their lives are still subject to a high degree of parental and social control - again, understandable).

    However, relationships between 18 year-olds and older men are quite common.

    Posted by Nikolas at 10/05/2006 @ 7:15pm

  242. And you call that proof?

    Posted by fromredbird at 10/05/2006 @ 7:18pm

  243. I'm through with this. Bye.

    Posted by fromredbird at 10/05/2006 @ 7:19pm

  244. That asshole Foley is a real double threat- he wasn't satisfied with blaming the Catholic Church for his repulsive behavior he had to give alcoholics a bad name, too. Maybe I'm upset because I just dribbled beer on my shirt but the drumbeats of this alcoholic witch-hunt have me unnerved.

    Well, equating homosexuality with alcoholism seems to accord with the general level of respect you accord to gay people, Mr Red.

    Posted by Nikolas at 10/05/2006 @ 7:25pm

  245. And you call that proof?

    Go out and mingle a bit with gay people, Reddo, see what's going on. They won't eat you :)

    Posted by Nikolas at 10/05/2006 @ 7:27pm

  246. Believe me when I say that I have an extraordinarily open mind when it comes to sex and love

    Posted by MRS MORAL MAJORITY 10/05/2006 @ 12:55am

    Why on Earth should we believe such contemptible nonsense, so clearly contradicted by your own stated views? You really are extraordinarily self-deluded.

    But you're also now on my ignore list, so by bothering to address me, you'll only be wasting your own time :)

    Posted by NIKOLAS 10/05/2006 @ 6:34pm

    Okay, I'll talk to myself and pretend you can hear me.

    First off, I have to wonder if continuing to call a man who doesn't support May-December relationships "Mrs" is a gay thing. Maybe I'll ask my big gay uncle Tony (his self-appointed nickname) this weekend when we have dinner together.

    And you were one of the strongest advocates ("Advocate", get it?) on the board about turning this into a gay issue and vilifying straights, as well as excusing older men pursuing young boys, but I'm the closed-minded one. Yeah, okay.

    Nikolas, take two 16-year olds and a copy of the DSM and don't ever call me again.

    I won't miss you.

    P.S. A word of advice for Niko, if anyone he isn't ignoring cares to pass it along -

    Making statements like "Relationships between younger men and older men are quite common amongst homosexuals" plays directly into the hands of those whom you actually do have a problem with - those who want to classify gays as perverts.

    I'm not one of them.

    Posted by New Dawn at 10/05/2006 @ 7:31pm

  247. Gee, Bird - thought Nikolas had you on ignore?

    Another liar on the Nation's boards.

    What a shocker.

    Posted by New Dawn at 10/05/2006 @ 7:33pm

  248. Relationships between 16 year-olds and middle-aged men are not common (although I had a relationship with a middle-aged man starting at the age of 17), for understandable reasons (16-year-old gays tend to be very limited in regard to the number of other gay people they know, of any age, and their lives are still subject to a high degree of parental and social control - again, understandable).

    However, relationships between 18 year-olds and older men are quite common.

    Posted by NIKOLAS 10/05/2006 @ 7:15pm

    Another thing: I refuse to be painted here as homophobic or ignorant about gays.

    Contrary to Nikola's prior blanket assumptions about me, I happen to include several gays, of both sexes, from the ages of 21 through 55, in my circle of friends and family, and of both sexes. I live fifty-five miles outside of San Francisco, for Christ's sake.

    Dear God, maybe it's because he's neither American or an American Democrat that Nikola seems so ignorant to the perceived (however wrongly) background music in America accompanying his statement above...

    We wait until their eighteenth birthday so we don't get arrested, doo-dah, doo-dah

    And will someone tell Nikolas to calm down about defending gays over this, and to stop assuming every straight who disagrees with him on anything else disagrees with him about all gays being perverts? It's paranoid and makes a very poor case for his positions.

    Most importantly, often lost in this Nation board discussion, and clearly regardless of my own personal positions on May-December relationships, this is not a gay issue.

    Posted by New Dawn at 10/05/2006 @ 8:33pm

  249. newdawn:"I believe that it means that I have a personal set of values that many agree with - 20, 30, 40 year age differences in relationships are unusual and generally frowned upon, after all - but you knew that.

    this is complete bullshit. relationships of a 20 or even 30 years are not frowned upon among enlightened and open minded individuals. perhaps they are where you are from, but not here. you claim to be tolerant and open minded but your posts tell a different story. for you to hang your guilt trip on Nicholas for his committed relationshipwhich is what I called you on, is deplorable. last night we agreed to disagre on a completely different subject.

    one more thing, you post on a public forum you have to take some criticism, that is what dialogue is made of. so no dice on me leaving you or anyone alone, and your thinly veiled threats are just ludicrous.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/05/2006 @ 8:43pm

  250. I think it's instructive to remember that "recreational sex" is a relatively new concept. Before reliable contraception in the ‘60s and ‘70s "recreational (heterosexual) sex" always carried the risk of an unintended child (remember, no abortions prior to '73 well '70 in NY, MA, etc.). A couple generations ago, a man who would "get a girl in trouble" and then abandon her was as despicable a creature as existed. (Usually, the phrase was a girl who got herself in trouble.)MaryBB

    this is pure nonsense. recreational sex is as old a humanity, and is described in literature from the greeks on, at least. same with abortions. they were always performed, including in the US during their prohibition. there was always a sympathetic doctor or nurse found, and many women had to turn to butchers and many women died.and a man who abandons a woman he impregnated is still just as despicable.

    "JR reads ND's comments and on an unconscious level he hears ND accuse him of predatory behavior and a lack of commitment, when JR has demonstrated his commitment by marrying the girl and has been faithful to her for years. And if she were to manage to get herself in trouble, I imagine JR would raise the child (and probably is, though I don't know and feel weird speculating)."

    sorry way off base here too. my spouse and I lived together from the time we met. we married only for form's sake when we decided to have a baby. our families accepted us from the start, and there was no pressure to get married. my son is now 16 and he is no child.

    I appreciate your trying to make some calm sense out of this, by the way on my part I have been having a discussion. I don't mind that others have different opinions, even intolerant ones. but I will not idly stand by and watch those same people declare themselves open minded.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/05/2006 @ 8:54pm

  251. Johannes -

    Some balm for you and Nikolas' wounds, you poor, put-upon things.

    Weyrich, Robertson used Foley scandal to spread falsehood about gay men

    Summary: Conservative commentator Paul Weyrich and 700 Club host Pat Robertson baselessly asserted that former Rep. Mark Foley's alleged misconduct is typical of gay men. As Media Matters for America has documented, studies that link homosexuality and child sex abuse are flawed and have been thoroughly debunked by numerous experts.

    http://mediamatters.org/items/200610050009

    Johannes,

    Last shots first.

    "no dice on me leaving you or anyone alone, and your thinly veiled threats are just ludicrous."

    I "threatened" you by saying that I might ask you to leave me alone less nicely - not at all like when I told you I would knock your teeth out if you called me a Nazi to my face. I was quite direct. I don't do "thinly-vieled" anything.

    You know on this board and given the nature of my discourse with you and others (anonymous and online from thousands of apart) that that means what with me - profanity? "Leave me the fuck alone" instead of "Please leave me alone"? Ooooh, scary. Don't make it sound like something ominous. What a wuss. I mean, really what a wuss.

    "this is complete bullshit. relationships of a 20 or even 30 years are not frowned upon among enlightened and open minded individuals."

    Why does the phrase "May-December" romance exist, Johannes? Do you have a clue, or are you just talking like you have a clue, in other words, directly out of your ass?

    Goddamn, but I hate to quote Wikipedia, but this is pretty damned close to the way I see it:

    Age disparity in sexual relationships

    Significant age disparity in sexual relationships has been a feature of both heterosexual and same-sex couples in many cultures and societies. The most common pattern in heterosexual couples is an older man with a younger woman. This may be brought about as an arranged marriage, or either member may pursue and initiate the relationship in those societies that favor freer association. Situations involving a younger male with an older female also exist, but are not as common. Age disparity in extreme cases may be seen as dysfunctional (a paraphilia) if such relationships are pursued to the exclusion of all others and to the detriment of the partners. The term alphamegamia can be used when a person is sexually aroused by partners of a different age group[1], and "chronophilia" can describe a sexual fixation on members of a different age group.

    Johannes, unless you support 20-30-40-year age gap relationships with teens, your beef is not with me. I said as much in an earlier post in order to clarify my position.

    What else you got?

    "you claim to be tolerant and open minded but your posts tell a different story."

    A different story to you. Oh, yeah, and to Nikolas.

    You're wasting the "closed-minded" label on me, boyo. It simply won't stick.

    But feel free to continue bitching about my claim (which is true) about being open-minded. Being open-minded to me doesn't have to include your definition of it.

    I was going to ask who the fuck you think you are that you get to determine the world's definition of open-minded, but let me just answer for you instead.

    You're nobody, Johannes. You're some anonymous schlub on an internet board, just like me. I put my personal opinions out there, and so do you, and so does everybody here - but I've clearly stated several times today that I actually don't dictate anything for anyone but my son.

    So, don't bother puffing yourself up so pompously with me and this board about who is and isn't "open-minded". We don't all live by your definition of that term anymore than the world lives by what I approve of or not.

    And come to think of it, Johannes, I don't really give a fuck who you think you are or what you think about me.

    "for you to hang your guilt trip on Nicholas for his committed relationshipwhich is what I called you on, is deplorable."

    I didn't hang a guilt trip, unless Nikolas is feeling guilty. And deplorable? To who? Oh, yes, to you. A 37-year old romancing a 17-year old begs questions to me, and I'm allowed to wonder. New York isn't the only place in the world, Johannes. This may shock you, but free citizens across the United States think and express their opinions, and they don't all agree with you. Sorry, bud.

    "last night we agreed to disagre on a completely different subject... one more thing, you post on a public forum you have to take some criticism, that is what dialogue is made of."

    So do you, if we're going to continue this dialogue.

    I asked you to agree to disagree and let it go because I like you and didn't want to get into an ugly argument with you (instead of a reasoned discussion about the actual issue) over something I could see without exploring further that you and I would not agree on.

    I also didn't want to get personal by addressing your arguments the other night about your own mother's experience as a 16-year old out "making her way" in the world on her own. I don't care to know the details of this, but it raises questions. Emancipation? Runaway? Mutual agreement? Many 16-year olds on their own in every state I have ever been in have been largely homeless or troubled. In Los Angeles, I never met a single 16-year old "out on their own" who wasn't troubled or homeless, or both. I don't intend to imply in any way, shape, or form that your mother's story isn't unique or even the exact opposite of what I've personally seen, but there's no law against me wondering, based on the fact that many 16-year olds "out on their own" against the world are largely troubled or homeless. I knew that arguing such a thing with you would be perceived as an immensely personal attack on your mother (it isn't - my own son and friends of his and thousands of U.S. children and even I myself ran away, for instance, when we were teens). But arguing it with you would have been non-productive.

    I also didn't want to point out how little your arguing about the average life span when "Romeo and Juliet" was written applied to the events of today. I had used the example as a tongue-in-cheek indication that a May-December romance wasn't going to happen as long as my teenaged son was under my roof. I also said that when my son is a "legal adult" he can make his own decisions, for better or worse. Arguing this with you would have been largely pointless, don't you think?

    You've conveniently ignored that context, by the way, to the detriment of your own credibility and to the bolstering of your own ignorance and arrogance.

    On whether there is an enormous difference between "impetuous, bold, stupid, and irresponsible love" in adults and in adolescents, we also obviously disagree. We could argue that all day.

    What else you got, dude?

    ================================================================

    3 new pages just came forward to accuse Foley of sexually explicit communications since I wrote this post.

    Pat Buchanan, on the other hand, was just on Scarborough calling Foley a "flamer" again and again and again, all while I wrote this post.

    Since, I wrote this, news is coming out that Mark Foley was offering pages everything from drinks and lodging for blowjobs.

    Posted by New Dawn at 10/05/2006 @ 9:56pm

  252. I also didn't want to get personal by addressing your arguments the other night about your own mother's experience as a 16-year old out "making her way" in the world on her own. I don't care to know the details of this, but it raises questions.

    yes you don't want to get personal and then you get personal, but I don't mind. what happened to my mom is called WW2. you see in your narrow little world you can make all kinds of supposition and they are ALL wrong. my mom took care of her grandmother and went out and got a job. her father was in the war, and this was what was necessary to survive. of course americans who have never experienced war on their own shores have no idea what life during wartime is. and we are talking total war, not some bullshit exercise in Grenada.

    you had no difficulty moralizing to Nikolas, with your small town hick morality, and I stood up for him, as I would stand up for you. your attacks on me, are pathetic, if you can't stand a civilized argument, post somewhere else. you see I don't have to curse you out, I let my writing speak for me. you are a very young person, that will change, imshallah.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/05/2006 @ 10:38pm

  253. Why does the phrase "May-December" romance exist

    this is a purely descriptive phrase, it does not in any way indicate disapproval, only in your moralizing little mind does it do so.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/05/2006 @ 10:42pm

  254. Fellas... you're deviating from the issue

    The republicans in congress...remember them? Holier than thou, family values, morally superior to the rest of the planet... (Yeah Right)

    Covered up the actions of a sleazy, slimy, kid groping perv.

    Let's stay on message OK

    Posted by Will C. at 10/05/2006 @ 10:45pm

  255. Will, my apologies, but digressions are a time honored tradition on this blog.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/05/2006 @ 10:52pm

  256. Will, considering that Rese and Plunger use up half the pages with their off topic conspiracy rants, I feel that my occasional digressions can be forgiven.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/05/2006 @ 11:08pm

  257. Interesting (to me, anyway) how points of view seem to depend more on ones age when married and parental status, then anything else.

    I usually aree with ND, but he did seem a little judgemental on the "may-december" relationship thing. Then I notice he became a parent at a young age...(I don't know you personaly, of course, New Dawn, so I am just using you as an example to wonder over.)

    FWIW I dated a couple of much older women when I was young. And am dating a much younger woman now. I think it's somewhat narrowminded to make assumptions about a couple, based only on their ages. (Minors excluded, of course.)

    Anyone else wonder if the republicans could be clever enough to time this politically "bad" event, to cover the real news (Iraq,"torture bill" etc.), other than me? I think it makes the reps. look bad, but it is tending to make the dems. look bad too.

    Eric

    Posted by Malcontent at 10/05/2006 @ 11:12pm

  258. Johannes -

    That's your response?

    So much for getting logic-slapped with the May-December argument, huh? You give up so easily.

    Okay.

    "yes you don't want to get personal and then you get personal, but I don't mind."

    You implied that my asking you to let our disagreement go (again) was duplicitous, and I put that implication in context. I made ZERO assumptions about your mother and said as much. I made a preliminary argument about the wisdom of the decisions that many16-year olds can make. I'm a big boy, Johannes, I don't "dis" mothers. Grow up.

    Here's what I said gain, in fact. The emphases lost in text and the important parts, the crux of my personal argument as it relates to the ability of most teens to make reasoned decisions about life and love, have been highlighted for you.

    I said, "I don't intend to imply in any way, shape, or form that your mother's story isn't unique or even the exact opposite of what I've personally seen, but there's no law against me wondering, based on the fact that many 16-year olds "out on their own" against the world are largely troubled or homeless. I knew that arguing such a thing with you would be perceived as an immensely personal attack on your mother - it isn't)

    But yeah, take what I said as an attack. Against your mom. Okay. Now, grow up.

    "what happened to my mom is called WW2. you see in your narrow little world you can make all kinds of supposition and they are ALL wrong. my mom took care of her grandmother and went out and got a job. her father was in the war, and this was what was necessary to survive. of course americans who have never experienced war on their own shores have no idea what life during wartime is. and we are talking total war, not some bullshit exercise in Grenada."

    My great-grandmother told me about her life back to the earliest 1900's when she was a little girl. I was enraptured. I appreciate your sharing your mother's story, it's fascinating and I'm betting I would boggle at the tales she could tell, but I didn't ask for that info, Johannes, nor did I ever say anything that prompted it. You are highly defensive andway off the deep end on this tangent, all of it, especially your stupid comments about my "narrow world" and "suppositions". You simply lacked reading comprehension on that one, pal.

    "you had no difficulty moralizing to Nikolas, with your small town hick morality,"

    Define "small-town hick morality" for the room, Johannes. Then I'll demolish your contention that that's me and make you look like a bigger idiot. Call me "Mr. Moral Majority" again. My lady and I laughed our asses off at that one on the way home from work.

    "I stood up for him, as I would stand up for you."

    Unless you disagreed and supported 20-30-40 year age gaps in sexual relationships with teens. You do support that, right?

    "your attacks on me, are pathetic,"

    But true.

    "if you can't stand a civilized argument, post somewhere else."

    If you can't intelligently respond to my last post, then.... okay. "Post somewhere else"? Really, Claire, can't you see how conceited you are? I don't tell people what to do like you do, Captain Pompous. Post away, here or wherever you like.

    "you see I don't have to curse you out, I let my writing speak for me."

    Try reading and comprehending. It's a ball. And as for the colorful vocabulary, sorry. I know many people don't care for that. It's a bad habit, but one I sometimes relish. We both know that it isn't because I don't have an intellect or a vocabulary.

    "you are a very young person, that will change, imshallah."

    We've been trying to get out of you all day what too young is. Spill it. How young am I, Johannes? And why? Let's talk about how young you have to be to be immature and make bad decisions.

    Oh, and one last thing...

    Did you mean:

    inshallah

    in·shal·lah [ in shállə ] or in·sh'al·lah [ in shállə ]

    interjection

    Definition:

    if God wills: an expression meaning "if God wills," used to suggest that something in the future is uncertain

    [Mid-19th century. < Arabic in šā 'Allāh]

    Pompous ass.

    Posted by New Dawn at 10/05/2006 @ 11:12pm

  259. everything about the future is uncertain. and thanks for the correction.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/05/2006 @ 11:21pm

  260. thank you Eric. if you would look back to the beginning of this discussion you will find Dawn passing judgement on Nikolas and his committed relationship with a younger man, 18 I believe he said his partner was at the start of that relationship.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/05/2006 @ 11:25pm

  261. Oh and Dawny, the jerk store called and they're running out of YOU.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/05/2006 @ 11:26pm

  262. Why does the phrase "May-December" romance exist

    this is a purely descriptive phrase, it does not in any way indicate disapproval, only in your moralizing little mind does it do so.

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 10/05/2006 @ 10:42pm

    Again, creative editing lacking context.

    I said:

    "Why does the phrase "May-December" romance exist, Johannes? Do you have a clue, or are you just talking like you have a clue, in other words, directly out of your ass?

    Goddamn, but I hate to quote Wikipedia, but this is pretty damned close to the way I see it:

    Age disparity in sexual relationships

    Significant age disparity in sexual relationships has been a feature of both heterosexual and same-sex couples in many cultures and societies. The most common pattern in heterosexual couples is an older man with a younger woman. This may be brought about as an arranged marriage, or either member may pursue and initiate the relationship in those societies that favor freer association. Situations involving a younger male with an older female also exist, but are not as common. Age disparity in extreme cases may be seen as dysfunctional (a paraphilia) if such relationships are pursued to the exclusion of all others and to the detriment of the partners. The term alphamegamia can be used when a person is sexually aroused by partners of a different age group[1], and "chronophilia" can describe a sexual fixation on members of a different age group.

    And apparently, Johannes, you should really contact Wikipedia to take them to task for their "moralizing little minds". Entering "May-December" in their search engine gives up the paragraph above as its default search result.

    Pompous ass.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------

    Eric,

    I have been with 40+ year olds when I was in my very early twenties, and a 19-year old when I was almost 30. I had a barely-17 mother, became a father at 19 myself with a 21-year companion. I'm absolutely certain that my own personal experiences influence my feelings about it today. Don't all of our own personal experiences weigh in on how we feel about things today?

    But am I being "judgmental"? As I've repeatedly said, I can't support 20-30-40-year age gap relationships with teens.

    Am I being told that I'm wrong on that one?

    And Eric, I'm not saying what I'm saying about any one particular couple - sure, there are exceptions that turn out exceptional - I'm talking about a standard as it applies to youths. There has to be one - what's too young for a 20-30-40 year gap to be okay? "Teen" is enough for me.

    J. Howard Marshall II married Anna Nicole Smith when she was 26 and he was 89. I think that's kinda creepy, but I really didn't care. I mean, good for them, but ew.

    It's different when it's my son.

    You guys think I'm wrong on that one, too?

    Posted by New Dawn at 10/05/2006 @ 11:36pm

  263. Oh and Dawny, the jerk store called and they're running out of YOU.

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 10/05/2006 @ 11:26pm

    This belongs on a bathroom wall in a seedy truck stop. Grow up and get an argument.

    Posted by New Dawn at 10/05/2006 @ 11:36pm

  264. thank you Eric. if you would look back to the beginning of this discussion you will find Dawn passing judgement on Nikolas and his committed relationship with a younger man, 18 I believe he said his partner was at the start of that relationship.

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 10/05/2006 @ 11:25pm

    As I've repeatedly said, I can't support 20-30-40-year age gap relationships with teens.

    Gotta draw the line somewhere. And I can live with my line.

    Posted by New Dawn at 10/05/2006 @ 11:49pm

  265. "There has to be one - what's too young for a 20-30-40 year gap to be okay? "Teen" is enough for me."

    Posted by NEW DAWN 10/05/2006 @ 11:36pm

    Actually, I missed the "teen" disclaimer in your original post. What I was commenting on was your implication (statement?) that all such relationships are either exploitive, or indicative of some social dysfunction, on the part of the older person.

    Liberal, athiest women, who fix their own cars are hard to find. I think I'd have thought about it, a tad longer, but done it anyway, even if she were only 18. While age can be a good indicator of compatible interests, good taste in music isn't everything. :)

    "It's different when it's my son."

    That was sorta what I was wondering aloud about to start with. Wasn't trying to pick on you in particular...just noticing every posters point of view seems to hinge on their age/parental status.

    And you posted last. Your welcome. :)

    Eric

    Posted by Malcontent at 10/05/2006 @ 11:53pm

  266. thank you Eric. if you would look back to the beginning of this discussion you will find Dawn passing judgement on Nikolas and his committed relationship with a younger man, 18 I believe he said his partner was at the start of that relationship.

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 10/05/2006 @ 11:25pm

    Hmmm... What else did he say?

    Relationships between 16 year-olds and middle-aged men are not common (although I had a relationship with a middle-aged man starting at the age of 17), for understandable reasons (16-year-old gays tend to be very limited in regard to the number of other gay people they know, of any age, and their lives are still subject to a high degree of parental and social control - again, understandable).

    However, relationships between 18 year-olds and older men are quite common.

    Posted by NIKOLAS 10/05/2006 @ 7:15pm

    In your own state, Johannes, 17 is legal. In mine (remember, you aren't the whole United States, let alone the world), 17 is criminal.

    As I've repeatedly said, almost a half dozen times now, I can't support 20-30-40-year age gap relationships with teens.

    Posted by New Dawn at 10/06/2006 @ 12:04am

  267. Eric -

    "I was commenting on was your implication (statement?) that all such relationships are either exploitive, or indicative of some social dysfunction, on the part of the older person."

    Not my intention to imply that all anything.

    I do not think that all such relationships are exploitive, or indicative of some social dysfunction, on the part of the older person.

    Now, Mark Foley?

    Posted by New Dawn at 10/06/2006 @ 12:08am

  268. Now, Mark Foley?

    Posted by NEW DAWN 10/06/2006 @ 12:08am

    Well, then there is him.

    Not interested in pursuing an argument with you. Just think you are a bit quick to draw conclusions on other peoples relationships, based on age. I personally see many relationships, that appear somewhat exploitive, to me, amongst couples of many ages/descriptions. But then, this whole conversation is a big deviation from the behavior discussed in the actual topic to this thread.

    Eric

    Posted by Malcontent at 10/06/2006 @ 12:30am

  269. Eric

    Posted by MALCONTENT 10/06/2006 @ 12:30am

    Exactly... the republican coverup of the actions of a sleazy, slimy, kid groping perv

    Posted by Will C. at 10/06/2006 @ 12:35am

  270. Not interested in pursuing an argument with you. Just think you are a bit quick to draw conclusions on other peoples relationships, based on age. I personally see many relationships, that appear somewhat exploitive, to me, amongst couples of many ages/descriptions. But then, this whole conversation is a big deviation from the behavior discussed in the actual topic to this thread.

    Eric

    Posted by MALCONTENT 10/06/2006 @ 12:30am

    Fair enough. Thanks for being polite about expressing your take on what I said, Eric.

    I also personally see many relationships, that appear somewhat exploitive, to me, amongst couples of many ages/descriptions. But I've been discussing adults and teens. I thought about what Johannes said earlier, and "child" didn't feel right any more, so I've been very careful to be clear. Teens.

    And I did say that I do not think that all such relationships are exploitive, or indicative of some social dysfunction, on the part of an older person.

    And I repeatedly said that I can't support 20-30-40-year age gap relationships with teens. I also said that I know there are exceptions, and that I don't dictate what anyone does, anyway.

    I also said I was speaking as this all relates to Foley, Foley, and Foley.

    What more can I say?

    Posted by New Dawn at 10/06/2006 @ 12:49am

  271. I had to defend myself all day because I don't support adult sexual relationships with teens.

    Twilight Zone.

    Posted by New Dawn at 10/06/2006 @ 12:53am

  272. What more can I say?

    Posted by NEW DAWN 10/06/2006 @ 12:49am

    What about that Foley guy?

    Seriously, you didn't have the "teen" part in your original post. I agree with your assesment of Foley and similar situations.

    Actually, my experience as a man dating a younger woman, is not primarily peoples disapproval, because they think it might be exploitive. But, it is "wink, wink, nudge, nudge." (Can everything be described with Monte Python quotes?) approval I get from lecherous men who seem to approve of what might be an exploitive relationship.

    It is a strange, sick world.

    Eric

    Oh yea. (insert Twilight Zone theme here)

    Posted by Malcontent at 10/06/2006 @ 01:12am

  273. Finished my scheduled work early this afternoon, so I went home and opened a bottle of cheap French champagne, and nursed a glass or two while exploring some 3D environments my beautiful boy, Alex, has conjured up out of his own imagination and the wonders of modern 3D processing. Brilliant stuff. I was sipping champagne on the very rooftop of an endless city, with skyscrapers soaring kilometres into a foggy twilight sky, with some of my own music deep in the background blending perfectly with the vistas - all delightfully choreographed by the love of my life :)

    When he got home he was tired so we ate and went to bed. One tired, hard-working 25-year-old genius, one tired, drunk, 44-year-old layabout :)

    But I'm up again now, and drinking a little more champagne, and Alex will join me eventually. And we might go out for some dancing tonight. I regard myself as never-endingly fortunate in being here, now, with the one I love.

    And I feel genuinely sorry for misplaced, displaced people like Foley. Sure, he has more money and a heck of a lot more public attention than the likes of me. But he's in a clinic somewhere, being "treated" for his involvement with the boys who've "distracted" him from whatever it was he imagined he was doing with his life.

    Me and Alex, we may not end up in the history books, or the scandal pages. But there are endless numbers of intriguing and inspiring human stories that never meet that fate, usually for good reason :)

    Posted by Nikolas at 10/06/2006 @ 01:17am

  274. very nice Darren.while we don't agree often, I appreciate your honest posts, admitting that someone else can be right about this point or that.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/06/2006 @ 08:34am

  275. In my mind, you were married the whole time.

    in our mind too, when we celebrate our anniversary, we start counting from the time we met, not from the date of our civil marriage.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/06/2006 @ 08:36am

  276. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 10/06/2006 @ 08:36am

    In my mind, you were married the whole time.

    in our mind too, when we celebrate our anniversary, we start counting from the time we met, not from the date of our civil marriage.

    I think that's pretty common in the U.S. these days, probably even more so in many parts of Europe, Australia, basically any western-style democracy. Marriage much more often follows cohabitation by quite a few years (five for me and my wife.) I think it's probably a funtion of longer lifespan; we have longer so we take longer in establishing long-term relationships. But it also means we look at marriage as a step, but not the principle one as we used to. Just goes to show that the social definition of marriage really does change no matter what the "defense of marriage" crowd likes to claim.

    Speaking of whom... it seems Barry's MIA still. And I was so looking forward to demolishing Reisman.

    Posted by Stwriley at 10/06/2006 @ 10:14am

  277. Word of the day is Twink [urbandictionary.com]

    What has become of the twinks who were victimized? Are they being counseled? Will they file suit or seek damages? Or were the twinks just the minows to catch bigger fish?

    Posted by Person at 10/06/2006 @ 10:31am

  278. Or were the twinks just the minows to catch bigger fish?

    this is pretty callous. it's also an attempt to blame the victim. shameful.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/06/2006 @ 10:39am

  279. Speaking of whom... it seems Barry's MIA still. And I was so looking forward to demolishing Reisman.

    Posted by STWRILEY 10/06/2006 @ 10:14am |

    I was totally looking forward to that show myself.

    Posted by New Dawn at 10/06/2006 @ 10:58am

  280. Wrong. Foley did what he did. It's indisputable and down right gross. The fervor and passion, the call for heads, the demands for change of leadership suggests something more to me. An exploitation of another kind for entirely different reasons, but just as gross to witness.

    Posted by Person at 10/06/2006 @ 11:06am

  281. person, kind of like with Clinton, were you as grossed out then?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/06/2006 @ 11:13am

  282. No doubt. The Republicans found a chink in the armor. Clinton was an easy target, the broad side of a barn, when it came to the womanizing. When the inevitable occured, they pounced. I agreed with the Democrats of the day that it was just sex. I'm a lot like Clinton, and I know that the same thing could very well have happened to me.

    Posted by Person at 10/06/2006 @ 11:37am

  283. The dems found a chink in the armor.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/06/2006 @ 11:46am

  284. JR -

    That sums it up nicely and I think is potentially the most important politican ramification. Pretty hard for Republicans to keep selling the idea that it is the party of family values and morality.

    Posted by Hman23 at 10/06/2006 @ 2:08pm

  285. I just learned from a confidential hsuB admin source that wishes to stay anonymous, why Foley ‘will' be totally vindicated and it ‘does' make total sense the more you think about it-- since there really aren't 'any' gay repubs. The supposedly gay repubs are really all just doing deep deep deep undercover cover rapture researcher for "R ove's E vangelical A ssociates for C ensoring H oliness I n N on-G ullibles".

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/06/2006 @ 3:06pm

  286. THE HOUSE OF COWARDS IS ABOUT TO CRUMBLE!

    Posted by oakabee at 10/06/2006 @ 10:30pm

  287. to whom it may concern: ese threads has gotten so nasty and crude, that I think some correction is in order. this goes beyond the remedy of the ignore button. for instance, when I urged a poster to open up his mind I was greeted with a torrent of abuse. when I se

    I have been posting for a long time, and yes I have occasionally attacked other posters, but never, I believe, with the kind of vitriol that has become all too common here.

    there was a time when a far more friendly collegiality reigned around here. to the extent that people who vehemently disagreed, were nevertheless friendly to each other. I'll give an example. Maasch. whose opinions I almost never share, nevertheless is someone I don't mind breaking bread with, or having a beer with, and I will when he visits my burg. have been extended invitations of a similar order from other posters, yes next time I'm in Seattle or Wyoming, I would be honored to partake of the hospitality so offered. Maasch for one, has consistently and unjustly been savaged. of course such abuse reflects badly on the abuser. it is to his credit that he has not responded in kind.I believe it is no accident that many thoughtful writers have left this blog for more tolerant pastures.

    so here it is: we can ALL make an effort to be more civil to each other, or the reasonable ones will continue to desert this forum, leaving the others to fling excrement at each other.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/07/2006 @ 08:26am

  288. this thread...

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/07/2006 @ 08:26am

  289. the above has gotten somewhat garbled. I will not correct this , as any reader will be able to supply examples of rudeness and extreme insults on their own.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/07/2006 @ 08:28am

  290. "for instance, when I urged a poster to open up his mind I was greeted with a torrent of abuse."

    You weren't "abused". The initial response to your claim of my being "closed-minded" was actually quite tame (Posted by NEW DAWN 10/05/2006 @ 12:55am). You insisted on pushing it, though, and naturally, the disagreement escalated.

    Your arguments were shredded, you bailed on multiple points that you didn't have any argument for, and you've just offered a pretty shameless downplaying of your own role in the remainder of our conversation, there, pal. Nice history rewrite.

    As for your shameless downplaying of Maasch's interactions here - he's come here all too often lately with nothing to offer this board or its discourse but one or two lines about how this is the kook section of the web. And you defend him for that.

    Whatever, Johannes.

    Posted by New Dawn at 10/07/2006 @ 1:31pm

  291. no matter what Maasch posts, the abuse heaped on him is undeserved. as for our exchange, I was at no time less than civil, which is not something that can be said about your response. oh, and that jerk store thing is a quote from Seinfeld. a very funny episode.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/07/2006 @ 1:36pm

  292. the example I chose, you, was by no means the most egregious. my editing garbled and lost a worse example, when someone referred to liberty as "animals like you". but if you look back, there are many many such instances, and that tone is what I was referring too. I did not name you, as I was not singling you out, though you often have quite a paranoid response, though my Gauleiter comment was surely over the line. I apologized for it, you said it was forgotten, but you resurrected it first chance you got. whatever.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/07/2006 @ 1:42pm

  293. See my paragraph two above - you want to debate civility, but not your lack of an argument.

    I backed up all of my positions with personal experience, and a few facts to boot. And had you not tried to bring me back into your posts in a such a "thinly vieled" way, you and I wouldn't be talking right now.

    If you don't like the way I argue in my posts after you start calling me "Mr. Moral Majority", then don't.

    I had let it go and moved on.

    What's your problem?

    Posted by New Dawn at 10/07/2006 @ 1:44pm

  294. With the dems tossing the Homosexuals under the bus to get their power back is an example of the lengths that they will go. When they equate homosexuals with pedophiles what group of constituents will be next?

    When did CREW get the emails and the IMs?

    Who gave them to the CREW organization?

    How did they get them?

    When we have the answers to these three questions then we will be able to pass judgment on the GOP.

    Posted by cupera2 at 10/07/2006 @ 3:11pm

  295. When we have the answers to these three questions then we will be able to pass judgment on the GOP.

    why? what you are advocating is to go after the whistleblowers, instead of holding the cover uppers responsible. no f... way

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/07/2006 @ 3:30pm

  296. With the dems tossing the Homosexuals under the bus to get their power back is an example of the lengths that they will go. When they equate homosexuals with pedophiles what group of constituents will be next?

    this is indeed deplorable. as for what lengths some people will go to regain or hold power, the repubs have the dems beat by lightyears not miles.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/07/2006 @ 3:40pm

  297. Ummm....prolly should stay out of this (esp. as one of the more profane posters here)....but what the hell.

    JR & ND,

    You both are two of the more coherent posters here. It is sad that you two cannot get along. For the record, in your last spat, I was more in agreement with JR. I too, found ND's position a bit "judgemental", but he didn't start with the name calling. JR, it was you who redredged it after y'all agreed to disagee. And, ND, I believe it was "nikolas" who called you Mrs. moral majority, not JR.

    As far as maash goes, while he is more civil (relatively speaking) than most of the conservative posters here, he quite often is just stirring irrelevant bullshit too. (BTW, JR, so many said they would rather have a burger or beer with bush, than gore, so that is hardly a good measure on a blog about political opinions).

    Whatever. Hope you both continue to post here....along with TJ, Freedomplease,frank,stwriley etc.

    What happened to I.L.P and ibble, anyway?

    Eric

    Posted by Malcontent at 10/07/2006 @ 4:09pm

  298. So CREW sat on these emails and IM for MONTHS and did nothing? They let this predator go after young boys and sat on the information?

    CREW only released these on the day that congress adjourns to campaign for reelection, this is not an act of a whistle blower. This is starting to smell like the Dan Rather forged document story released at the same time of the Democratic fortunate son campaign.

    Posted by cupera2 at 10/07/2006 @ 5:38pm

  299. As a Montessori teacher I have only a few rules in my classroom based on the 3 Rs. Respect your classmates and teacher. Be Resourceful. Take Responsibility. When a child says "I did it on accident!" There is more to it than bad grammar. The child is not taking responsibility. This seems to be the problem with Speaker Hastert. He isn't taking responsibility for a problem he obvioustly knew existed. He needs to take the consequences like any good 3rd grader.

    sophizgood

    Posted by sophizgood at 10/07/2006 @ 5:46pm

  300. Please show the evidence that Speaker Hastert knew about the IM befor the emails?

    Posted by cupera2 at 10/07/2006 @ 6:37pm

  301. thanks, Eric.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/09/2006 @ 5:51pm

John Nichols John Nichols

Breaking news and analysis on political, social, economic and cultural activism that mainstream media commonly ignore.

Archives

  1. November 2009

  2. October 2009

  3. September 2009

  4. August 2009

  5. July 2009

  6. June 2009

blog roll

Advertisement
Advertisement

Blogs

» The Beat

Health Care Bill Advances, as Harry Reid Trumps Sarah Palin | The death panelist-in-chief rallied her followers to "KILL THE BILL." But 60 senators decided to follow the real leader.
John Nichols
5 Comments

» The Notion

Palin as the Church Lady | Going Rogue book tour brings passive-aggressive rightwing Christianity to the fore.
Leslie Savan
127 Comments

» Altercation

Slacker Friday | The "Second Amendment" sale; the raving paranoids of the right.
Eric Alterman

» Editor's Cut

An Alternative to Escalation in Afghanistan | President Obama is expected to make a decision regarding his Afghanistan strategy after Thanksgiving.
Katrina vanden Heuvel
79 Comments

» The Dreyfuss Report

Chongqing: Socialism in One City | China is managing the most important event in the world: the urbanization of half a billion people. Fast.
Robert Dreyfuss
207 Comments

» Act Now!

Toward Copenhagen | A guide to joining the movement against climate change.
Peter Rothberg
65 Comments