Tom Maguire, who I genuinely think is interesting and has a lot to offer the blogosphere, pens perhaps the silliest excuse possible (although I have not checked the Powerline’s deep thoughts on the matter, so ‘silliest’ might not be fair) for why the GOP leadership sat on the Foley story and did nothing:
However, picture this headline – “House Leadership Boots Allegedly Gay Republican On Trumped-Up Pedophilia Charges”. Ugly. Worth Avoiding. Listening to Andrew Sullivan decry the homophobes in the House would not have been worth it. So they played it a bit too cautiously and slowly and here we are.
They didn’t do anything because they were afraid of Andrew Sullivan.
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Here is an alternate theory that makes more sense- the GOP is full of shit and more concerned about retaining power than governance, and therefore decided that if they could quash the story and keep Foley in a ‘safe’ seat, they would.
Which of those two scenarios sounds more plausible? And btw, am I the only who thinks it is profoundly offensive that it is just assumed that because Sullivan is gay, he is going to go to bat for a pervert?
Geoff
We’re here! We’re Queer! oh shit….
Gold Star for Robot Boy
That’s beautiful.
Seeing the wing nuts scrable for a talking point, any talking point, is simply making my weekend.
There is no upside for the GOP coming out of this. And this ain’t anywhere near done.
Keith
They played it a bit too cautiously? A bit too cautious is at the very least getting the guy to step down from heading a caucus devoted to protecting kids from sexual exploitation over the Internet.
But the problem is that this group of folks views everything in a political perspective, so the first priority is to minimize political damage. I do wonder what the threshold is for seeking justice even at the expense of your party’s standing in the next election.
Bill Arnold
Here is an alternate theory that makes more sense- the GOP is full of shit and more concerned about retaining power than governance, and therefore decided that if they could quash the story and keep Foley in a ‘safe’ seat, they would.
I believe that’s what TM said, though well cloaked in snark and obtuseness.
Richard 23
I read in the comments that CREW somehow got the IM transcript and sat on it until it would help the Democrats. Apparently its time to go after Soros funded CREW.
Some of the commenters too stupid to figure out how to save chats figure that this is entrapment or something similarly nefarious. I suspect AG Gonzalez. He does want to protect us from porn after all.
Hyperion
Hey, the version of the quote *i* saw had John Cole’s name in there along with Andy. i remember thinking that JC’s ascendance to real playerhood was complete.
Hyperion
Hey, the version of the quote *i* saw had John Cole’s name in there along with AS. i remember thinking that JC’s ascendance to real playerhood was complete.
Bill Arnold
There is a retraction about the alleged CREW-hoarding of IM transcripts later in the comments on the TM thread.
sglover
All this outrage shows why liberals can’t be trusted in the fight against IslamoNaziism. It takes Republican courage and Republican creativity to enlist NAMBLA in the struggle. I believe Congressman Foley rates a Presidential Medal o’ Freedom, at least.
srv
As bad as mainstream media is, at least they have minimal standards. The best the wrong-o-sphere today has to offer is shit that doesn’t even make sense to their own base.
Is there any medical research on kool-aid overdose? Just how much high-fructose cornhole syrup can someone take?
Richard 23
BREAKING: Foley Set Up?
Zifnab
Totally. The last thing you want is for our Republican Congress to come off looking anti-Gay right?
DougJ
I wouldn’t be too tough on T-Mac. At least he’s not blaming it on George Soros and Joe Wilson.
John Cole
It’s like they haven’t been running on an anti-gay platform the last 3 decades.
sglover
I’d never heard of this Tom Maguire guy before; I don’t think I’ve been missing much. But that comment thread is some of the most awesome comedy gold I’ve seen in months!
Gold Star for Robot Boy
You can taste the palpable desperation over at Maguire’s site.
ABC, George Soros, the St. Pete Times – they’re all in on it!
Pb
Comedy gold! If idiots like this didn’t exist, we’d have to invent them. Wait, does Mac Buckets have a blog?
DougJ
Don’t worry, though, the commenters over at T-Mag have been pretty tough on Foley.
Pb
Now here’s a real story:
Bets on whether or not the media notices?
Gold Star for Robot Boy
Over at Talking Points Memo:
sglover
From the comedy thread. I did NOT make this up:
Just think if the evil Bushies were not around and Saddam was still in power his son the child molestor and baby killer would still be plying his trade. But hey, that is child’s play {as they say} compared to this.
Gold Star for Robot Boy
Commenter at Captain’s Quarters:
CaseyL
Iraq = Old news. Therefore, boring. Also the MSM was in the bag for Bush, cheerleading for war and sitting on stories that would’ve shown it as a con job from the start. Covering it now? Only makes ’em look bad.
Foley = New news. Plus, a sex scandal. Therefore, sparkly and fun.
Like a lot of other people, I’d’ve preferred to see the GOP totter and fall on more qualitative grounds. But, hell, I’ll take what I can get.
tsoodonym
The district was solidly Red! If the GOP were truly an engine of Realpolotik, they would have pressured Foley into “spending more time with his family” and found another warm body.
It isn’t possible that the blatant liberal stereotype of the Bush administration’s arrogance and incompetence extends into the House leadership, is it? How do you blow this call??
Gold Star for Robot Boy
Funny you mention that scenario. In early 2003, Foley was being discussed as a possible candidate to run for the Senate seat being vacated by Bob Graham in ’04. But Foley suddenly said he wasn’t interested, because he had to take care of his parents.
CaseyL
About that initial investigation…
I’ve heard two slightly different versions of what happened.
One is that Hastert delegated the investigation to people who “weren’t in touch with the page program.”
The other is that the page program manager either didn’t know about, or ignored, the situation.
But the pages knew about Foley. They’d taken it on themselves to warn the new guys about him.
There’s a lot here to be angry about. To me, that’s the worst part: that the pages were essentially abandoned by everyone, and had to try dealing with the matter themselves.
scs
Can you people READ? Check out the latest NYT front page story on it.
It says that only the ‘overly friendly’ emails to the one page were disclosed to the GOP bosses last year, after which they warned Foley to stay away from the pages. It wasn’t until after the ABC story was aired last FRIDAY that the higher ups were told of the graphic contents.
I mean I’m not defending the guy or his superiours, but until we know the full story and/or find out otherwise – let’s not prejudge the actions of his superiors. And you all hate Nancy Grace because you think she prejudges? Oh the irony.
Gold Star for Robot Boy
How much juice does a page have? None. To the GOP leadership, these boys were expendable becuase they were the epitome of powerless.
Pb
LOL! No, sorry, I’m laughing too hard…
scs
Maybe at the voices in your head.
Gold Star for Robot Boy
If that’s the case, then why lie?
Gold Star for Robot Boy
scs,
The GOP leadership didn’t know about the more explicit stuff because they didn’t want to know.
scs
It depends on what you consider inappropriate. I don’t know if the earlier emails rose to that level, as they were described as “overly friendly”. Until we know otherwise, let’s not prejudge.
CaseyL
Hey, scs – Go tell it to the kids who had nobody defending them.
Yeah, you go explain to a bunch of 16-year old kids that the GOP leadership thought so little of them that it didn’t bother investigating Foley’s multiple, repeated, sexual overtures to them.
The latest news is that five pages have come forward.
Not one, not two, but five.
Tell it to the kids, scs.
Pb
Not everyone hears voices, scs–just because you might, that doesn’t mean that it’s normal. In fact, I’m starting to wonder about all these Foley defenders out there. Do they think this is somehow normal too? How many Republican perverts and/or victims are out there leading double lives right now, and how do they deal with it–for example, can you really blame Bill Clinton for *everything*? And I wonder how all those Congressional pages will turn out:
scs
They’re the GOP, not the Psychic Friends Network. Maybe they didn’t know because the boy didn’t want to release them. Apparently his parents said he didn’t want to get involved in this issue. Which kind of makes me wonder how anyone ever got them. Perhaps some sort of computer break in by the Dems, maybe as an election time stunt? It does seem a little timely. Hmmm…
scs
From what I know so far, they only came forward AFTER this story broke.
Gold Star for Robot Boy
scs,
Don’t try to defend the indefensible.
KC
This whole thing was clearly a setup by Crew; the liberal media; Bill and Hillary Clinton; Chuck Schumer; the DNC; the DSCC; the DCCC; liberal Republicans like Andrew Sullivan, Colin Powell, and Brent Scowcroft; the State Department; activist judges; and of course, communists and terrorists.
Pb
It’s amazing how the Republicans will recite their own playbook, chapter and verse, whenever they try to blame or smear Democrats for absolutely anything with no proof.
Yep, sounds like a familiar tactic. Some people just have no morals and therefore will do anything to win. That’s perhaps the only way you can run the country and consistently spin the media, and *still* be historically unpopular.
sglover
Funny you mention that scenario. In early 2003, Foley was being discussed as a possible candidate to run for the Senate seat being vacated by Bob Graham in ‘04. But Foley suddenly said he wasn’t interested, because he had to take care of his parents.
Maybe he was intimidated by the awesome political genius of the unbeatable Katherine Harris?
I almost think the GOP is trying to win me back by giving me hours of belly laughs.
Gold Star for Robot Boy
scs, yes or no answer: If it’s discovered that GOP House leaders knew Foley was hitting on underage boys yet did nothing to stop him, should they be forced to resign?
sglover
Hey, scs —
Do you have any archived comments anywhere from 2003? I’ve got a feeling you wrote some hilarious stuff about the new Utopia that was gonna spring up on the banks of the Tigris.
scs
Again, I’m not excusing what he did. But just how did these emails come to light, right now, if the boy didn’t release them? If there was some informant, I’m guessing it more likely to be a Dem informant – which is fine. The only thing I question is the timing. Wouldn’t it just as reprehensible if some Dem party operative knew about these reprehensible emails for a long time and held on to this info, so that it could be released right before the election? That would show just as much disregard for the safety of the children.
tBone
Yes. Remember those two teenagers he murdered with a train? Smart money says they were pages who refused to go along with the Soros-funded Foley entrapment conspiracy.
scs
I would say yes. But they would have to have fully known the seriousness of the harassment.
scs
On the other hand, I’m not exactly sure what they can do. I mean, can they just fire the guy, even though he is independently elected? I would guess he would have to be impeached, but I don’t think Foley actually committed a legal crime as the boy was above legal age. It would be more like sexual harassment in the workplace – which is taken care of civilly. I don’t know what the procedure is for this stiff.
Gold Star for Robot Boy
And if it’s found their investigation last year was only cursory?
tBone
Shorter scs:
“I’m not excusing what he did, but the Dems are just as bad.”
There’s a concept in civilized society called “shame,” scs. You should look it up.
scs
Well it would have to be super cursory. They are not private detectives. If no one came forward to them, even after they asked around, I would think they did what they could.
KC
scs, I think we’ve got this one figured out: It was the Democrat, with the emails, right before the 2006 elections. Now, if only the rest of the country would realize this. Damned Democrats!!!
Pb
My understanding is that some Republicans in the House have known about Foley for at least eleven months, and that the FBI has known about it for at least two months. At some point, ABC found out about it, and presumably did some digging, asked around, and then broke the story. I don’t see ‘Dem party operative’ anywhere in there, though. That part must have been added by the voices in your head.
Gold Star for Robot Boy
Why would it have to be?
Doesn’t Congress have a police force? They’d have detectives.
scs
Yeah that’s the part I’m curious about.
Richard 23
“I’m not excusing what he did, but [insert excuse here].”
scs
Again, as the kid was of age, it would not be a criminal matter, only civil. They couldn’t force anyone to answer questions.
CaseyL
Let’s try this again, slowly.
scs: the pages knew. The pages were warning one another about Foley. Not today, not yesterday, not tomorrow in the NYT, but for months now.
So tell me. Did the people Hastert delegated the investigation to not even bother talking to the pages? Or did they ignore what the pages had to say?
You’re still flogging the Schiavo-was-murdered-by-her-husband crap, based on testimony from somebody’s hairdresser or something. You’ll accept as proof medical statements from people who aren’t qualified to comment on the subject. You don’t care where the statements come from, or who makes them, or what their agendas might be, as long as they say what you want to hear.
Yet you think it’s OK to have an investigation of sexual predation that doesn’t even talk to the people being victimized? Or ignores them if they were interviewed?
You consistently set new benchmarks for willful obtuseness.
KC
Pb, you’re missing the whole point here. There was a nefarious Democrat behind this somewhere. I mean, the stalwart religious men who lead our House of Representatives can’t be so unscrupulous as to try and bury the colorful exchanges between Mark Foley and that “page,” right? The good of the country, as we all know, always comes first for them.
Richard 23
Good Lord. Maybe get him off the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children?
Gold Star for Robot Boy
You sure about that?
scs
I don’t know if they spoke to them or if they did, if the pages told them anything. That’s why I am going to wait for a little thing called the “facts”. You should try it sometime.
. Yes Oxford University and CalTech medical reseachers are not as qualified as Maureen Dowd and John Cole to give me medical information.
scs
If the kid was of age – and he was 16, and 16 is the age of consent in most states, I doubt there would be any criminal charges. Naughty emails are not against the law. I would have to find out what the age of consent is in the kid’s home state – or the state in which he was living when he received these emails first to know.
Pb
From Bloomberg:
Some page board. Of course, this is how the Republican majority does everything in Congress nowadays–and now Republicans are pissed that Republicans are being blamed for their participation in a Republican-only cover-up. Well maybe you should have thought of that before you entirely stopped performing your Constitutional duties to provide Congressional oversight!
And then they have the temerity to “question the timing”. Why didn’t this come out last year, or six months ago? Becuase Republicans didn’t want it to come out at all, otherwise it would have come out earlier. However, *this time*, they weren’t successful in holding it until at least after the election, as they had been in 2004, with so many stories. Because, back in 2004, even The New York Times was actually willing to hold off for a year on publishing damaging stories just on the administration’s say-so. Well, now their stock has fallen, so that trick isn’t working so well nowadays.
And make no mistake–these partisan hacks don’t give a damn about protecting children–not when it might upset their chances of winning elections! But, as often happens, their cover-up has finally caught up with them. Now let’s see how they manage to blame Clinton this time.
Richard 23
scs says:
Pb
scs,
You’re wrong. Read through the past threads on this, or just get informed, period, before you make stupid, already debunked statements.
scs
Well that’s true. Strange how the pattern is always the same, how the perpetrators are always hanging out where the enforcement is. Like murderers who become cops. I wonder why that is.
scs
Okay, after eading the transcript, if the guy was 16, and participating, why was he so offended by it? Couldn’t he have just signed off? Foley wasn’t his direct boss.
scs
I think that was an auto reply.
Gold Star for Robot Boy
And now we get to the beautiful irony.
Under the so-called “Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006” (of which Foley was a co-sponsor), along with 18 U.S.C. 2251, discussion or solicitation of sexual acts between Foley and any “minor” under the age of 18 would appear to be a criminal offense (see Adam Walsh Act, Sec. 111(14) (“MINOR.–The term ‘minor’ means an individual who has not attained the age of 18 years”) and 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2256 (1) (“’minor’ means any person under the age of eighteen years”).
Pb
Or foxes who guard henhouses, or totalitarians who falsely pledge to uphold the Constitution. Yep.
Pb
You’re wrong.
:)
Gold Star for Robot Boy
Never got one of these next to my post before. Anyone know what’s going on?
scs
Looks like any old post to me.
Pb
Gold Star for Robot Boy,
Did you have more than two links in it? That’ll do it…
scs
Well that is ironic. If that is law then he’s in trouble.
Gold Star for Robot Boy
No, I sent a reply with three links in it, and I have a hunch it can’t be seen by anyone else. Must’ve be triggered an anti-spam filter.
Gold Star for Robot Boy
ding! ding! ding!
Richard 23
The pages knew to warn each other about it, a report got to house leadership about a page who was creeped out about it, and the House leadership couldn’t be bothered to give a damn. Then they lied about it.
The FBI was given the IM transcript a couple of months ago and never bothered to do an investigation as far as I can tell from available information.
Republicans don’t care about children at all. They care about votes.
scs
You know, those IM’s remind me of IM’s I get bombarded with in chat rooms all the time. The sex drive of humans (men) still amazes me. The internet was very educational for that for us all- as, who knew?
Richard 23
It sounds like the investigation performed by House leadership amounted to
Q: Are you sending creepy emails
A: Er, no
Q: OK! Go raise some campaign cash!
Instead of something like contacting pages and asking if they had received unwanted creepy communications, perhaps anonymously.
Why? They simply didn’t give a damn.
scs
Honestly the whole idea of “pages” is a bad idea. Mixing high schoolers and horny pols is asking for trouble. Just the name “page” sounds like some perv’s fantasy. The program should be ditched.
srv
You spend alot of time in chatrooms?
I’ve got it! Foley was just doing research on this, for his work on legislation.
scs
You don’t have to spend a lot of time in chatrooms to get those. A few minutes is usually enough.
sglover
Honestly the whole idea of “pages” is a bad idea. Mixing high schoolers and horny pols is asking for trouble. Just the name “page” sounds like some perv’s fantasy. The program should be ditched.
Right. We should keep bright, ambitious kids far away from the seat of government.
Y’know, every now and then I’ll see a news story about a teacher or coach who’s put the moves on a high schooler. Guess we oughta shut down the schools, too.
Are you capable of holding a job, scs?
scs
Tell me any other professional place where we have highschool students as young as 16 working with adults in the workplace? No place. Why should Congress be any different?
scs
Are you capable of any logical thought?
Pb
scs,
You know how I hate to burst your bubble, but a lot of those messages could very well be automated–some major chat rooms on IM services are clogged with that sort of garbage.
scs
I know that. You get those. But I’m talking about starting a convo with someone. 9 out of 10 times those lines come up within minutes. Still trying to figure out if that type of person is attracted to the internet or if all people are like that deep down if given the anonymity of the net. Who knows. Someone should do a study.
Pb
Apart from a 16 year old who gets an actual job, also pretty much any sort of volunteer work or internship program. I was actually required to do some such work as an entrance requirement for a school when I was 16 or so.
sglover
Tell me any other professional place where we have highschool students as young as 16 working with adults in the workplace? No place. Why should Congress be any different?
Um, well, schools, like I said. I’m pretty sure that lots of retail and food service joints also routinely employ 16 year olds, under adult supervision. Errmmmmm…. Are you saying that the youngsters are just too damn frisky to be resisted by any adult?
Look, I know you think you were making some kind of point, but if I were you, I think I’d drop it before I backed myself even further into the silly corner.
scs
Well I never heard of anyone doing that. Internships were for college students. In fact I worked part time at 16 at a store, but there were very strict rules about how many hours a week you could work, and where you could work etc. I never heard of a 16 year old working with full time adult workers. In fact, I remember to be a receptionist I think by law you had to be 18, so having a 16 year old in the work place is just not done.
scs
No I’m saying that they are not prepared emotionally to be placed in such an adult envirnoment.
Pb
Some of both, perhaps–the anonymity no doubt contributes. And I’m sure a lot of it also depends on the state of mind of the person in question at the time, which is a factor that should really be considered in any sort of personality research. For example, I’ve noticed that my Myers-Briggs scores can fluctuate in a predictable fashion depending on my mood.
scs
I agree PB. The internet is a rich place to do psychological research I think. Certain things are definitly surprising on there.
Pb
I’ve never heard of such a law, and I did some work like that too, I think I was 16 then as well, or maybe a bit younger.
scs
No way. Well first of all, 16 year olds can’t be full time workers by law – so they can’t really be receptionists as most people want full time receptionists. But I’m not a lawyer. Someone will have to look up the labour laws for that.
Pb
scs,
The self-selecting nature of the internet does make things difficult for general research, but perhaps that phenomenon in itself deserves some study. In my experience, you’ll find many more civil liberties advocates and libertarians–self-proclaimed or otherwise–on the internet. And probably a scary number of glibertarians and their cousins the Randites as well, for that matter. I’ll also speculate that along with more civil liberties advocates and more liberal values, you’ll also find more secularity and more sexual openness as well. In the meantime, the devout Catholics are busy reading this, which cuts down on valuable surfing time! :)
Pb
scs,
Yes, I wasn’t full time at all, but I don’t think the position itself was full time, really, and I also wasn’t the only receptionist. This was a temporary thing for a computer training center, so mostly I’d just sign people in and answer the phone, and the rest of the time I’d study the training materials.
scs
In my “research” I find that chat rooms are filled with extremes. You find lots of blue collar trucker types on there and then also lots of very successful people from all types of professional careers. Also lots of engineers for some reason. Maybe engineers tend to be all libertarians, who knows!
Pb
Heh. Well, speaking from personal experience, we computer / internet types tend to value our freedom of expression. :)
Bruce Moomaw
Maguire really is grabbing for anything at this point, isn’t he? (An impression I’ve gotten about him recently on other subjects, such as the torture and habeas issues.)
Of course, if the House leadership actually did have copies of even a single one of those — er — blatant E-mails by Foley, there would have been no question of them having “trumped up” charges against him. And Sullivan, of course, has never had the slightest truck with child molesters.
The Other Steve
scs doesn’t want us jumping to conclusions about Mark Foley?
Apparently the creepy emails weren’t enough, nor was the sexually explicit instant message logs, or his resignation.
Really, he’s quite innocent, and is being setup by this Page who shouldn’t have been working there anyhow.
Hey, that reminds me…
Where’s Darrell, Mac Buckets, Par R, and Paul L? I need some comedy today, and nothing says comedy like a bunch of rightwing partisan shills.
Proud Liberal
busy cleaning up their hard drives? a joke, its just a joke. I kid the ass-licking bush toadies of Balloon Juice.
Andrew
Come on folks, scs has a good point.
Why aren’t we hiring hot hot hot 18 year olds to run around and tempt Congressmen?
With some minimum age standards in place, it will be open season and LEGAL(!) to hit on the pages in any jursidiction! And you’ll be safe from prosecution under Foley’s Internet crimes bill!
n.b. Dan Barlett is an asshole who will burn in hell for his lies. re: Meet the Press, now.
VidaLoca
OK, that’s it. From now on, everyone under 18 has to wear a burqua.
Because, you know, it’s never the adults’s fault.
If the adult is a Republican.
VidaLoca
Oh, and while we’re at it. Diapers on all the goats.
The Other Steve
Ok, that Tom Maguire site is seriously fucked up and sick.
They’re arguing that the age of consent is 16, so these weren’t children. It’s perfectly acceptable what Foley did.
Tim F.
Guaranteed career-killers: getting caught with a dead girl or a live boy. Conventional wisdom strikes again.
VidaLoca
Wait, now let’s be fair. John put the post up late Saturday night, right now it’s still early Sunday morning. These guys have got to get some sleep some time, they haven’t been on this all night the way you all were.
Let’s give props to scs though, she’s really been doing stellar work here.
tBone
16-year-olds can work full time (with exceptions in certain industries) unless their child labor laws are more restrictive in that regard than the federal Fair Labor Standards. Even 14-15 years old can work up to 40 hours when they’re not in school (again, as long as their state laws aren’t more restrictive). I worked full time every summer after I turned 15.
Zifnab
Again, I’m reminded of the pedophiles working in the Department of No-Land Security.
They caught 3 of them. One was even in Operation Predator, the DoHS program specifically designed to catch online predators. What a joke, right?
And that’s not even getting into the Abu Garab prisoner sex abuse or the reports of soldiers in Iraq sexually abusing people in the field.
I’m not saying all Republicans are pedophiles or anything. I’m just say thing, much like the Catholic Priesthood, if your policy is “don’t ask, don’t tell, blindly support the President” you end up with alot of sickos slipping through the cracks.
EL
SCS, care to comment about candy stripers in hospitals? All those evil youths, usually female, tempting those susceptible adult nurses and doctors?
Bottom line is this is supposed to be a supervised program for young people to get government experience. It’s worthy, the way any internship or volunteer program can be a good way of getting students interested in a career.
Now, as the investigation. Have ever been an administrator? I have. And I can tell you that even at my very low level, I knew damn well that if someone was accused of something that could spell serious trouble, you did a decent job of investigation. You didn’t just ask the accused “Did you do this?” and accept a “no.”
What the hell do you suppose “overly friendly” emails implies? Merely that the sender was guilty of being a very nice person? It implies becoming inappropriately familiar.
At that point, you interview other pages. You interview past pages. You check with staff people the pages might talk with. Want to bet some of the pages who sent stuff in once the story broke wouldn’t have spoken up?
Proud Liberal
I like this take on the Foley/Hastert sex scandal:
live by the sword, die by the sword.
DougJ
This is not a joke: how old are you scs? I’ve worried in the past that you are underage and some of the language here can be a bit adult. If you don’t want to tell us your age, at least verify that you are over 18. Thanks.
scs
Man you really can’t read. I wasn’t talking about Foley. I was talking about not jumping to conclusions about the prior knowledge of his ‘bosses’ until we have the facts. Or is getting the facts before we judge someone guilty too much work for you?
Or we could just make it 21. Clinton seemed to work with that age just fine.
CaseyL
Is anyone watching the TV talk shows? I have no stomach for them, myself, and would really appreciate it if someone who does can tell us (me) whether the fit has hit the shan there, too.
scs
I have verified that to you. In fact I’ve verified I was over 21 to you in the past as well but apparently reading is not your forte. Again, try Hooked on Phonics- it’s worth a try.
Bob In Pacifica
Hey, I’m afraid of Andrew Sullivan too.
scs
I don’t think 16 year old minors should be working in full-time adult workplaces. With all the sexual harassment problems today it’s just not a good idea. I mean, every office I’ve worked in was basically a sex club underneath it all, with older desperate men hitting on the younger females, and 16 year olds shouldn’t have to be placed in that environment. Especially working with politicians, as that is a major power imbalance. It’s not just having a problem with your boss at your local Pizza Hut – it’s having a problem with someone who could affect your whole life. There is plenty of time to get internships in college. I think even those should be banned by the way. Any person working for free should be illegal. At least give them minimum wage I say. But those are just my opinions.
scs
I meant should NOT above.
Proud Liberal
yes… its not looking good for the republicans. Even Geroge Will on “This Week’s” roundtable says this hits right at the republican base. CNN had Hardwood of WSJ on and he was saying this could be very very big. They also had a “man on the street” segment and this is not going over very well with the public as you can imagine. This is a timebomb for the GOP congress.
DougJ
Thanks, scs. No, reading is not my strong point.
Did you guys seen Glenn Greenwald’s take on the Assrocket defense:
CaseyL
What distinguishes this from all the previous scandals is that it’s something voters can identify with – because, unfortunately, sexual predation against youngsters is commonplace.
One, a lot of voters have children, and have probably had their kids at least mention that an adult was trying to come on to them.
Two, all voters were once kids themselves, with their own stories to tell on the subject. Even if getting hit on by an adult happened during a time when it wasn’t considered a crime (more like a social solecism), the gut-churning fear, uncertainty, and shame were the same. People remember that kind of thing.
tBone
You don’t go far enough. Women shouldn’t be working with men, period. It’s just asking for trouble. I say it’s long past time we had gender-segregated workplaces. In addition, to forestall any same-sex hanky panky, everyone should be fitted with genital electrodes wired into a monitoring system as a condition of employment.
You are on fire today.
scs
Why not have 6th graders do internships? After all, they need to have that valuable learning experience to prepare themselves for junior high. You can’t start soon enough to get a leg up on the competition.
capelza
Well, by that logic, all pretty boys and females should wear burkas, because, you know, men just can’t control themselves.
16 y/0’s are quite often capable and able to work beside adults. It is a great experience and preparation for adulthood.
As for the excuses from the GOP House fellas…they are just that. I know this isn’t a BIG thing, but it is what sells in Peoria. The GOP would rather keep a seat than risk losing it because the guy is a creepy man mashing on young boys.
Btw, the age of consent in “liberal” Oregon is 18.
CaseyL
The wingnuts haven’t quite settled on their talking points yet. We do have some of the saner ones calling for wholesale investigations and resignations (including Hastert’s), vis a vis the ones either dismissing it along the lines of “Hastert didn’t actually see the emails himself, so it doesn’t matter if anyone told him about them” and – my personal favorite – the ones who say the whole thing’s a Democratic Plot.
Tell you the truth, if it is a Democratic Plot, my opinion of Democratic strategists has gone way up. :D
DougJ
Why not ban all work? It’s just a pretext for sexual harassment. And we can just outsource everything to the Chinese if we have to. Working in an office, or even in one’s home, is just asking for trouble. That’s the real moral of the story here. It’s too bad the moonbats are too myopic to see it.
tBone
That seems to be Foley’s modus operandi, anyway.
Andrew
You call it work, I call it servicing, er, serving our country.
Zifnab
Shorter SCS: Clearly the page was asking for it. Did you see how he was dressed?
Gold Star for Robot Boy
This is the October Surprise.
Know why?
Because the media attention devoted to Foley’s Follies sucks all the oxygen out of the room. Everyone’s attention will be devoted to uncovering the cover-up, to finding more victims, to chasing down Foley for that first interview. And there won’t be any media types around to pay attention to anything else.
The Other Steve
A series of emails that the 16 year old kid said “creeped him out”, and every reasonable person I know would look at and say “Someone better call the sex crimes division”… you’re saying we should not pass judgement on Hastert for looking at all of this and believing it was innocent?
Yeah, right.
Keep defending your little sex predator scs and those who enabled and covered for him. It just shows what morally depraved asshats the Republican party is full of.
Pb
DougJ,
There’s just no telling what scs did or didn’t tell you–remember, she thinks everyone here is DougJ.
W.B. Reeves
There are a number of ways of describing scs contribution here. Obtuse, hypocritical, intellectually bankrupt, morally as well as ethically depraved and sick come to mind.
However, I will go with what seems most appropriate to me: Pathetic.
sglover
What distinguishes this from all the previous scandals is that it’s something voters can identify with – because, unfortunately, sexual predation against youngsters is commonplace.
Big quibble: “Sexual predation against youngsters” invariably cranks up media feeding frenzies, but “commonplace”? I suspect not. Consider all the adult-minor interactions (in school, in sports activities, in churches, in outfits like the Boy Scouts) in the U.S. — it’s a vast universe. Out of that pool, I suspect that exploitative relationships are pretty small, practically negligible in a statistical sense (if somebody can provide some persuasive numbers, I’m ready to change my view). But as far as I can tell journalists are essentially numerically incompetent, and anyway, they sell more issues by screaming about perverts.
Of course, in the poorer parts of the world — and likely the poorer parts of the States — exploitation of children is more common. Yet another form of human degradation that tracks with poverty. But don’t expect our illustrious corporate media gasbags to dwell on that relationship very much…
sglover
Question: Since “scs” seems to reason like a child, are we engaging in abusive behavior by pointing out how silly he is?
CaseyL
Now you’ve insulted children.
Really. I know 8-year olds who can reason rings around BJ’s Class(less) Clown.
DougJ
There’s just no telling what scs did or didn’t tell you—remember, she thinks everyone here is DougJ.
True, but I am bad about reading people’s comments before I comment.
scs
DougJ – you and your clones seemed obsessed with 8 year olds. I have been compared to an “8 year old” across the many id’s here, and that was one of the first clues that opened my eyes to your monkey business. I can’t remember the last time I referred about an eigth year old. What are 8 year olds to you and why do you talk about them so much? Enquiring minds want to know.
scs
Ok to again quote the NYT article:
This is what they knew about the first email:
Although it should have sent up a red flag, on it’s face not illegal. What the House leaders did:
If you ask me, Hassert took the appropriate steps, he referred it to the page commitee for investigation. What else do you want him to do? He is not a school principle or even a corporate boss and he referred it to the right department.
Now the page committee should have investigated it more, by interviewing the pages, but they didn’t. Perhaps those guys should be fired. But like in a company, it is more than the fault of just individuals in dealing with these situations but can be the fault of bad policy and not having a proper procedure to investigate these complaints. And that is a congress wide issue. I would be curious to know what sort of sexual harassment policy they have in place at the Federal government.
DougJ
Scs — I’m not the other people here. I’m just DougJ. You can John to check the IPs.
scs
IP’s can be faked. Even us non-techies know that.
Andrew
I am DougJ’s raging bile duct.
Proud Liberal
Hastert and the Republican leadership knew that they had a predator in the Congress and they did NOTHING to protect that pages that were put into their care. This shows that they KNEW for over FIVE years. Disgusting:
Oh, and btw, none of the pages assigned to Democratic congressman were given the above warnings. We will be finding out more and more about this over the next couple of weeks. As they say, this is a story with legs. Couldn’t have come at a worse time for the GOP I’m happy to say.
Krista
So….you’re saying that the solution isn’t strong and enforced penalties for sexual predators and sexual harassment in the workplace, so as to discourage that sort of crap.
The solution is to eliminate any and all sources of temptation for those men, as they cannot be reasonably expected to control their animal urges.
Your mentality is shared by those who would keep women cloistered in their homes, or wearing burkas.
Shame on you.
scs
Yes, that’s EXACTLY what I’m saying! I’m sooo glad you got it.
No, what I’m saying is I don’t think average 16 year olds are mature enough to function in that adult environment. We don’t let 12 year olds do errands for congressmen, why should 16 year olds? We don’t let 16 year olds go to Rated R movies, we don’t let them go to bars, we don’t let them sign contracts – should I go on? No matter how good the rules and enforcement are, there will always be people who go around them. In that rare case, I think the page should be at least 18 to have enough maturity so that they know how to handle the situation properly and make sure they tell the right authorities.
But maybe you’re right. Why just make it 16? Who needs to graduate highschool first before you become a gofer for an powerful adult, under their beck and call. I think 12 is a much better age to do errands for Congressmen. Or even 10! Never too young to get started, right?
Pb
What you’re saying is that we should find a solution to the wrong problem–the problem isn’t that *these* (not average) 16 year olds weren’t mature enough to function in that adult environment–the problem is that some (Republican) *adults* in Congress weren’t mature enough to function in that adult environment!
Because they’re four years older? Bogus and slippery slope. We don’t let 15 year olds do errands for Congressmen, why should 19 year olds? etc.
No, but you will anyway.
This was actually Bush’s argument for not taxing the rich more as well–because they’ll just cheat anyhow. Why bother with laws, when some people won’t follow them? If only we had no laws, we wouldn’t have any criminals either! Brilliant Republican logic at work!
Comedy gold. How old should the Congressmen be, pray tell? Oh wait, that didn’t work…
csc
scs is right! In fact, 16 year olds shouldn’t be allowed to work at all. Do you have any idea how many perverts eat fast food and go to movies? What kind of sickos would expose children to that sort of danger? Hell, y’all remember that Letourneau lady. High schools are a hotbed of pervy adults, too. Any parent who allows their child to attend a school is just begging for their kid to wind up in that sort of situation.
Oh man. I just thought of something. Most child molesters prey on members of their own families. It’s grossly irresponsible to allow adults near children at all! I completely agree with scs’s well-thought-out and completely sensible comments, as well as the logical conclusion that all children under the age of 18 should be removed from adult care and raised in state homes run by other, preferably Republican, children.
scs
PB – so we let 16 year olds work in the adult world because they are 4 years older than 12 year olds? Wow. That’s great logic.
How about we decide on an age where we believe that children are emotionally equipped to deal with adults and any conflicts that may come up with that. I’d say let’s go with the minimum age a child must be to get into an R-rated movie – say 18. Or the minimum age a child must be to be considered an adult. Wow – 18 again! Who’d have thunk?
Pb
scs,
Not necessarily, but it’s a good reason not to falsely equate them and paper over the obvious difference here, as you were doing.
Or we could set a minimum permissible age and a maximum cut-off, and do evaluations for the people in between.
I think you meant to say “17 or with a parent or guardian”.
What is that, exactly? Actually, it depends on state law. In my state, it’s defined like this:
So actually there are four criteria set out here, any of which would legally make you an adult here–age, marriage, emancipation, or military service–perhaps more in other states. To take just one of these, it’s possible for people as young as 14 to get married here. So in reality, and depending on the state, the legal age range for this is probably somewhere between 12 and 21. Like I said–a minimum, a maximum, and other criteria in between. Amazingly, the law already does this.
Only an ignorant idiot.
Tom Maguire
I’d say let’s go with the minimum age a child must be to get into an R-rated movie – say 18. Or the minimum age a child must be to be considered an adult. Wow – 18 again! Who’d have thunk?
Or we could check the law – if we did that, we would find the age of consent in DC to be 16. Who’d have thunk?
And btw, am I the only who thinks it is profoundly offensive that it is just assumed that because Sullivan is gay, he is going to go to bat for a pervert?
Congrats on being able to blog despite the reading disability – if the charges are TRUMPED UP, then Sully wouldn’t be defending a “pervert”, now would he? The first set of emails (the only ones availabe to the House, as best we know) are, by many people’s reading, no big deal. I would not be surprised at all if many folks concluded that Foley was being railroaded by homophobic Repubs if the only evidence was “what do you want for your birthday, send a pic”.
In fact, I am entirely confident that if Foley *were* being run out of town on the basis of that weak evidence and the consensus Repub view favored that on the basis that it was better to be safe than sorry, a few predictably unpredictable “conservatives” would decry the mad rush to judgment.
So no, I don’t think Sullivan would go to bat for a pervert just because he is gay, and yes, I do find that notion deeply offensive.
Pb
As for Sully’s reaction, we needn’t still be speculating, he has a blog, and he has commented on this, starting here and continuing on in a few other posts.
Amen. Of course, that conclusion is also my opinion in general, and I imagine that a strict enforcement of that principle would result in a lot of turn-over in Congress, perhaps on the order of hundreds of seats. :)
John S.
I wonder how scs would have reacted if Clinton had been caught propositioning a 16-year-old girl…
No doubt she would have been equally as fervent in herr cries for the ‘facts’ and a thorough ‘vetting’ before passing judgment.
Bruce Moomaw
While this is water under the bridge (or, more accurately, sewage under the bridge) given the revelations since, let us take a look at Tom Maguire’s argument as repeated by him above: The House leadership didn’t investigate Foley AT ALL because — if they threw him out of the House on “trumped-up charges” — Andrew Sullivan would denounce them. What’s wrong with this chain of logic?
Alternatively, Sullivan has such a large soft spot for child molesters that — even if they threw Foley out of the House on clearly justifiable grounds — he would viciously attack them for it, and (given the well-known gay-loving nature of the GOP’s core constituency) they were trembling in terror of THAT possibility.
One is forced to conclude that Maguire’s watch has stopped.
scs
If you’re Tom Maguire – I’m Michelle Malkin.
Isn’t an r-rated movie – ’17 and under’ must have a parent or guardian? – or in other words, 18 is the cut off date? I would be 95% certain of that without looking it up yet. Feel free to link a source if you know otherwise.
scs
Also, all those exceptions about military service and marriage is not really a valid point. There are exceptions to every rule – and picking a minimum age is of course by its nature arbitrary. But when we pick a minimum age- we go by an average. We don’t go by the special circumstances of marriage or emancipation etc. that you list. In most states in most cases, 18 is the minimum age to sign legal papers, live on your own – in other words be an adult. Why then, are we having children work in the White House?
Let’s face it, the page program is just a convenient way for rich campaign donors to get their kids a resume stuffer for their college bound kids. Do you really think all these kids are working there for the love of the US government? No, it’s more like their parents are trying to get their kids the earliest start possible to getting their kids another unfair advantage in getting their kids into the Ivy’s, in addition to all the other donations and kickbacks they probably give directly to the school. I’m so tired of hearing pundits say with such despair “Ohhh it’s such a great program for the kids. I hope they don’t end it.” It’s a waste of time for 16 year old kids to be pouring coffee for Congressman. Isn’t there enough time for those same kids to pour government coffee when they are in college? At least wait until they are college juniors for god sakes and have a good reason to pour the coffee. They are at least more likely at that age to know if they want to work in government.
nyrev
Learn to trust that doubting 5%.
kevin lyda, co. galway
Just so we all know, CREW sent those IM’s to the FBI. Who did nothing.
But yeah, sure, blame George Soros. Or start labeling Foley as a Democrat – worked for O’Reilly, right?