I Guess We Can Add Pervert

To the list of titles applicable to the Republican congressional majority:

Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla., submitted a letter of resignation from Congress on Friday in the wake of questions about e-mails he wrote a former male page, according to a congressional official.
Foley, 52, had been considered a shoo-in for re-election until the e- mails surfaced in recent days.

Campaign aides had previously acknowledged that the Republican congressman e-mailed the former Capitol page five times, but had said there was nothing inappropriate about the exchange. The page was 16 at the time of the e-mail correspondence.

Foley’s election opponent, Democrat Tim Mahoney, has called for an investigation.

The first I heard of this was last night, when a commenter linked to this story. I defended him, because I thought the emails were innocuous.

And once again, I was wrong. He is a pervert. Apparently, as cynical as I am, I am still naive about predators.

Really, I don’t know why any of you even read me. Am I ever right about anything?

*** Update ***

DKos notes Foley is a member of the Missing and Exploited Children Caucus. I guess he really did love kids.

*** Update #2 ***

Wikipedia has this:

Foley has been one of the foremost critics in the House of child pornography. Foley introduced a bill in 2002 to outlaw websites featuring controversial images of nude preteen children, saying that “these websites are nothing more than a fix for pedophiles.”[5] In June 2003 he wrote letters to the governor and attorney general of Florida, asking them to review the legality of a program for teenagers of a Lake Como nudist resort in Land O’Lakes, Florida.

Foley’s legislation to change federal sex offender laws was supported by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, America’s Most Wanted host John Walsh, and a number of victims’ rights groups. President George W. Bush signed it into law as part of the Adam Walsh Child Safety and Protection Act of 2006.

Foley also succeeded in getting a law passed that allows volunteer youth-serving organizations like the Boy Scouts of America and Boys and Girls Clubs to have access to FBI fingerprint background checks to help protect children.[6]

*** Update ***

Woah.






167 replies
  1. 1
    Pb says:

    LOL.

    Really, I don’t know why any of you even read me. Am I ever right about anything?

    No, but at least you can admit it eventually. :)

  2. 2
    Mike in SLO says:

    Really, I don’t know why any of you even read me. Am I ever right about anything?

    Yes, you are right to acknoweldge when you are wrong, or when facts surface to change your mind. You assimilate new information and adjust accordingly. It’s why we think you a responsbile conversative and read you daily. It’s what we dream the current Administration and Republican leadership would do. Don’t be so hard on yourself, John!

  3. 3
    Nicholas Weaver says:

    Because you are one of the minority of the republican party who will admit that this is no longer the republican party.

  4. 4
    ET says:

    Frequently.

    It is just that making judgments on incorrect or incomplete information is a bad idea unless you are Bush or Cheney.

  5. 5
    Dug Jay says:

    This is quite a contrast with what Democrats have done under far worse situations. For example, Gary Studd from Massachusetts, admitted sexual relations with underage male pages, and continued to serve for a number of additional terms in the House, and Barney Frank, who acknowledged that his male lover was running a male prostitution business from his Washington DC house.

  6. 6
    Pb says:

    ROFL. From Daily Kos:

    UPDATE: Note: Foley was co-chairman of the Missing and Exploited Children Caucus.

  7. 7
    capelza says:

    Because we genuinely like you. Because you are honest..hard headed, stubborn, but sincere and willing to admit it when you are wrong or change your mind. Well that’s my reason.

    As for Foley…well. Doea this mean Mahoney is a shoe-in?

    Did Foley vote for the torture bill? Did he wait till AFTER the vote to resign? Am I too cynical?

  8. 8
    Pb says:

    …and then there was always the classic Washington Times story… I wonder how old Jeff Gannon was back then.

  9. 9
    Keith says:

    and then there was always the class Washinton Times story

    “The exposé centered on the role of one Craig Spence, a Republican powerbroker known for his lavish ‘power cocktail’ parties.”

    This stuff writes itself, although as an editor, I’d change that last bit to “power cock/tail parties”.

  10. 10
    RSA says:

    Really, I don’t know why any of you even read me.

    You are the prodigal son, so to speak, where “home” equals “reality”.

  11. 11
    Bombadil says:

    Really, I don’t know why any of you even read me. Am I ever right about anything?

    Because every once in a while, you feed us straight lines that we can’t resist.

  12. 12
    McNulty says:

    Foley’s legislation to change federal sex offender laws was supported by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, America’s Most Wanted host John Walsh, and a number of victims’ rights groups. President George W. Bush signed it into law as part of the Adam Walsh Child Safety and Protection Act of 2006.

    It reminds me of that Law and Order:SVU episode where that judge who was thought to be a friend to abused women and opened a shelter for abused women was actually bribing them and getting hummers from them in exchange for him doing them favors.

  13. 13
    Richard Bottoms says:

    >Really, I don’t know why any of you even read me.

    To see the dawning comprehension of a former true believer.

  14. 14
    caroline says:

    John Cole,
    Don’t be so hard on yourself. The informaation yesterday didn’t seem that bad. It’s only this new information that really changes the facts.

  15. 15
    canuckistani says:

    Really, I don’t know why any of you even read me. Am I ever right about anything?

    You’ve always been right about evolution and ID. You might be right about football, but it isn’t hockey, so I’m not sure. You are never right about cats. They’re eeevil.

  16. 16
    EL says:

    Because you are willing to think, and to change your mind.

    I think your defense of Foley reflected what I’ve seen when people are confronted with allegations of child abuse of any sort: they find analogies to their own behaviour (but in very different context), they know they wouldn’t do it, so they believe the accused wouldn’t do such things either.

    The context is key. The tip-off was that the page himself found it disturbing.

  17. 17
    Mr Furious says:

    So, if the page wasn’t a guy do you think he would have resigned/been tossed overboard?

  18. 18
    capelza says:

    Oh my gosh…cats are so not evil…they are libertarian!

    Yes, I forgot to add John’s defense of science and reason, his opposistion to torture and his stance on the the Sciavo thing.

  19. 19
    ThymeZone says:

    Really, I don’t know why any of you even read me.

    It’s the free food.
    .
    .
    .
    But seriously …. your flock just likes you.

  20. 20
    Richard 23 says:

    Really, I don’t know why any of you even read me. Am I ever right about anything?

    Oh, come on! You man up when you realize you’ve made a mistake. When you’re wrong you’re wrong and when you’re right you’re right. Nobody’s perfect.

    Foley introduced a bill in 2002 to outlaw websites featuring controversial images of nude preteen children, saying that “these websites are nothing more than a fix for pedophiles.”

    More proof of the old adage: it takes one to know one. I wonder how large his collection of research material into kidde porn is.

    Anyone know his position on gay scout leaders?

  21. 21
    Bombadil says:

    Anyone know his position on gay scout leaders?

    Horizontal?

  22. 22
    Richard Bottoms says:

    >Anyone know his position on gay scout leaders?

    Openly gay guys, you know the evil people we can’t let get married, would just ask for a date. Not my thing, but I was flattered.

    The married closet cases like Foley give off a sick vibe that anyone who was ever molested can pick up in a minute.

  23. 23
    Steve says:

    I actually feel somewhat sorry for the guy. I mean obviously, his behavior was creepy and wrong and I make no excuses for it. But he didn’t have to choose to be an advocate against child pornography and graphic websites. He could have made any number of other issues his legislative priority.

    I dunno, maybe he had some ultra-creepy motive like being able to find out which websites had the cutest boys. But I wonder if, in some sense, he wasn’t trying to atone for his inappropriate behavior by doing the right thing on a political level. Maybe he couldn’t control his impulses, but he felt that by protecting other kids he was making up for it somehow.

  24. 24
    Bombadil says:

    I actually feel somewhat sorry for the guy. I mean obviously, his behavior was creepy and wrong and I make no excuses for it. But he didn’t have to choose to be an advocate against child pornography and graphic websites. He could have made any number of other issues his legislative priority.

    I dunno, maybe he had some ultra-creepy motive like being able to find out which websites had the cutest boys. But I wonder if, in some sense, he wasn’t trying to atone for his inappropriate behavior by doing the right thing on a political level. Maybe he couldn’t control his impulses, but he felt that by protecting other kids he was making up for it somehow.

    Possibly. Or maybe he was just a sexual predator.

  25. 25
    AkaDad says:

    Anyone know his position on gay scout leaders?

    Bombadil Says:

    Horizontal?

    LOL

  26. 26
    Bruce Moomaw says:

    Isn’t it interesting, though? A sex scandal — even one that does relatively little harm to people (aside from creeping them out) — and they have to quit immediately. But a gigantic, nationally destructive financial scandal of the Abramoff type (turn to “TPM Muckraker” for the latest wad of thousands of newly released E-mails by Just Plain Jack, confirming that Rove and Ken Mehlman were among his most dependable go-to guys) — or a scandal involving a deliberately trumped-up war, or wholesale torture and abuse of detainees (many of them innocent) — and they hold on like barnacles.

  27. 27
    Pb says:

    Mr Furious Says:

    So, if the page wasn’t a guy do you think he would have resigned/been tossed overboard?

    If the page had been a 16 year old girl who came forward? Hell yes he would have been. And especially if we later heard from other young girls etc., once these stories break, other accounts tend to have a way of bubbling to the surface.

  28. 28
    SeesThroughIt says:
    Anyone know his position on gay scout leaders?

    Horizontal?

    *rimshot*

  29. 29
    Bombadil says:

    Isn’t it interesting, though? A sex scandal—even one that does relatively little harm to people (aside from creeping them out)—and they have to quit immediately. But a gigantic, nationally destructive financial scandal of the Abramoff type (turn to “TPM Muckraker” for the latest wad of thousands of newly released E-mails by Just Plain Jack, confirming that Rove and Ken Mehlman were among his most dependable go-to guys)—or a scandal involving a deliberately trumped-up war, or wholesale torture and abuse of detainees (many of them innocent)—and they hold on like barnacles.

    While I take your point, Bruce, this was more than just a sex scandal that does “relatively little harm” — he was dealing with minors, here.

  30. 30
    Pb says:

    Bruce Moomaw,

    The media actually *covers* sex scandals. But everything else–fraud, graft, war profiteering, war mongering, treason, etc.–apparently requires Congressional oversight. Except during the Clinton years, of course, when sex scandals required Congressional oversight… *sigh*

  31. 31
    DougJ says:

    Come on, what about all the 16 year-old boys Clinton sent creepy emails to?

  32. 32
    jaime says:

    Dug Jay, does the buck stop anywhere with you fucking wingnuts?

    Now it’s a Democrat plot to hold onto the news just before the elections.

    If Foley is a child predator and the Democrats found out and sat on it until it benefitted them politically, then how many children did they put at risk for their political gain?”
    BINGO!! The American people will not like the dems doing something so sick one little bit!

    This wingnuttery brought to you by the loyal subjects of the fiefdom of “Free”republic.

  33. 33
    sglover says:

    I actually feel somewhat sorry for the guy. I mean obviously, his behavior was creepy and wrong and I make no excuses for it. But he didn’t have to choose to be an advocate against child pornography and graphic websites. He could have made any number of other issues his legislative priority.

    Errrr…. So why feel sorry for the hypocritical asshole? I think you’ve got things exactly inverted. If he’s gay and aboveboard, so what? It’s the sanctimonious maggots chiping away at our liberties — to “defend” us from things that evidently they themselves indulge in or profit from — who deserve nothing but contempt.

    Oh, and another thing — why am I not surprised that this scumbag is a “morals” Republican? He can eat shit and die.

  34. 34
    DougJ says:

    The kid was asking for it. Did you see how he was dressed? I bet he’s a Democratic activist who was trying to entrap the poor Congressman.

  35. 35
    mrmobi says:

    John, may I also say that you’re being too hard on yourself?

    We read you because there just aren’t that many places where one can find a conservative with a conscience these days.

  36. 36
    Richard Bottoms says:

    Oh, and another thing—why am I not surprised that this scumbag is a “morals” Republican? He can eat shit and die.

    Snap!

  37. 37
    DougJ says:

    How come never hear the good news about all the pedophiles in Congress?

    To be serious for a minut here: John, you were right to defend him at first. Innocent until proven guilty.

  38. 38
    ThymeZone says:

    Come on, what about all the 16 year-old boys Clinton sent creepy emails to?

    I don’t think Darrell and Mac really appreciate having their personal lives blabbed all over the internets like this.

  39. 39
    jaime says:

    How come never hear the good news about all the pedophiles in Congress?

    What is the Democrat plan to send creepy emails to 16 year old pages?

  40. 40
    Steve says:

    It’s the sanctimonious maggots chiping away at our liberties—to “defend” us from things that evidently they themselves indulge in or profit from —who deserve nothing but contempt.

    I don’t get it. I don’t consider the right to have sex with young boys to be one of the precious freedoms that Republicans love to trample on. I don’t consider it a right at all.

    If someone likes to have sex with young boys, but tries to compensate for it by passing laws that stop other people from having sex with young boys, I’m not saying it makes up for his underlying creepiness. But I don’t think it makes him WORSE than someone who likes to have sex with young boys, period.

    Somehow “hypocrisy” became the worst sin a person can commit. I don’t agree. Bill Bennett may be a hypocrite for trying to regulate people’s morals while being a sleazy guy in his personal life, but the point is he’s being an extra-bad guy by (1) trying to pass bad laws while (2) being a hypocrite about it. That doesn’t mean I have to similarly condemn someone who (1) tries to pass GOOD laws while (2) being a hypocrite about it.

    I just think it’s interesting to try and figure out what goes on in the guy’s head. I’m definitely not making excuses for him.

  41. 41
    DougJ says:

    I blame — he had 8 years to deal with Foley and did nothing. And as for that memo Bush received saying “Foley determined to send creepy email 16 year old page”, remember it didn’t say which page or what email account he Foley would send the messages from.

  42. 42

    Republican Foley Resigns Over Messages To Minor

    Oh boy:Saying he was “deeply sorry,” Congressman Mark Foley (R-FL…

  43. 43
    Louise says:

    You’re a reality-based conservative who speaks out against theocrats and hypocrites. What’s not to like? In fact, most days I think we should get you on some kind of endangered species list, just to be sure you stick around.

  44. 44
    ThymeZone says:

    It’s the sanctimonious maggots chiping away at our liberties—to “defend” us

    In most cases, they’re not even genuine sanctimonious maggots. They’re just opportunists, pushing emotional buttons to get votes, and they don’t really give a damn about the sanctimony.

    The sanctimonious ones are being used and manipulated for their votes.

  45. 45
    DougJ says:

    Actually, to be serious again, I do feel sorry for the guy. And it sounds like he did try to make up for his own tendencies by being an advocate for children’s causes. He shouldn’t be in Congress and it is possible he did something illegal. But I think people like him suffer from a sickness that may be beyond their control to some extent. Obviously, they should still suffer the consequences of their actions, but I’m loathe to describe the guy as a monster. I’m sure he feels terrible right now.

    That said, I don’t see why we shouldn’t joke about it.

  46. 46
    Tsulagi says:

    Is there any need for The Daily Show to have writers on staff with Republicans in office? They really do write their own shit.

    Even though the page isn’t old enough to be registered to vote, how long before he’s labeled a Democrat ambush operative? Never pass up an opportunity to feed the persecution meme.

  47. 47
    Rudi says:

    I wonder if he’s been caught up in a MSNBC sting operation?

  48. 48
    sglover says:

    Somehow “hypocrisy” became the worst sin a person can commit. I don’t agree. Bill Bennett may be a hypocrite for trying to regulate people’s morals while being a sleazy guy in his personal life, but the point is he’s being an extra-bad guy by (1) trying to pass bad laws while (2) being a hypocrite about it. That doesn’t mean I have to similarly condemn someone who (1) tries to pass GOOD laws while (2) being a hypocrite about it.

    OK, I’ll type this sloooooowly. If we were talking about the guy at the corner bar who’s always complaining about goddam faggots, and then turns out to have a weekly habit of cruising the local gay pickup hangouts, nobody would care. It’d be just another example of human frailty. But somehow it seems a tad different when it’s not the local tavern crank, but a guy who makes a practice of introducing laws that can destroy people’s lives, to defend against largely illusory bogeymen — and he’s one of the bogeymen!! Understand, now?

  49. 49
    Punchy says:

    And once again, I was wrong. He is a pervert. Apparently, as cynical as I am, I am still naive about predators Republicans and their “values”.

    Fixed.

  50. 50
    sglover says:

    In most cases, they’re not even genuine sanctimonious maggots. They’re just opportunists, pushing emotional buttons to get votes, and they don’t really give a damn about the sanctimony.

    Good point. I think we have a semantic disagreement. To me, “sanctimonious” always implies false piety.

  51. 51
    jaime says:

    All I can think of now is this guy.

  52. 52
    DougJ says:

    guy who makes a practice of introducing laws that can destroy people’s lives, to defend against largely illusory bogeymen—and he’s one of the bogeymen!!

    But you have to admit, given that he was a bogyman himself, he probably didn’t see the boogeymen as largely illusory.

  53. 53
    Andrew says:

    Look it, somebody needs to represent the pedophiles of America, right?

    A Florida Congressman is, well, the first person I would pick.

  54. 54
    Steve says:

    But somehow it seems a tad different when it’s not the local tavern crank, but a guy who makes a practice of introducing laws that can destroy people’s lives, to defend against largely illusory bogeymen—and he’s one of the bogeymen!! Understand, now?

    No, I completely don’t understand, although maybe DougJ explained it better than I can.

    As far as I can tell, the laws this guy favored were laws against child porn on the Internet and things of that nature. I’m against child porn on the Internet and the people who make money by pushing it, so I don’t have a problem with that. You need to do a better job of explaining what you mean by “laws that can destroy people’s lives.”

  55. 55
    Pb says:

    Confusingly, you’re both right:

    1913 Webster:

    Sanctimonious \Sanc`ti*mo”ni*ous\, a.
    1. Possessing sanctimony; holy; sacred; saintly.

    2. Making a show of sanctity; affecting saintliness; hypocritically devout or pious. “Like the sanctimonious pirate.”

    But I think the second definition later gained prominence:

    From WordNet (r) 2.0 [wn]:

    sanctimonious
    adj : excessively or hypocritically pious; “a sickening sanctimonious smile” [syn: {holier-than-thou}, {pietistic}, {pietistical}, {pharisaic}, {pharisaical}, {self-righteous}]

  56. 56
    Pb says:

    As far as I can tell, the laws this guy favored were laws against child porn on the Internet and things of that nature. I’m against child porn on the Internet and the people who make money by pushing it, so I don’t have a problem with that.

    So I take it you’ve never looked into those laws, then? If they were all about going after the people who make money by pushing it, I’d be all for them. Unfortunately, they aren’t–not even close. Actually, the perfect analogy here is “The War On Drugs”, except that in this case they probably spend most of their time going after the deadly Oregano Users.

  57. 57
    Richard 23 says:

    Jeepers. Anyone still feel sorry for this guy?

    Hours earlier, ABC News had read excerpts of instant messages provided by former male pages who said the congressman, under the AOL Instant Messenger screen name Maf54, made repeated references to sexual organs and acts.

    In another e-mail sent to the page, Foley said of a second teenager working on Capitol Hill, “He’s in such great shape.”

    Uh huh. Just interested in “helping out” young people.

  58. 58
    Steve says:

    Ok, before I get further caricatured as taking the pro-pervert position, I’ll just drop it.

  59. 59
    Dungheap says:

    For those of you wondering about the promptness of the resignation, just one day after the arguably innocuous e-mails surfaced, consider this:

    ABC had obtained “excerpts of instant messages provided by former pages who said the congressman, under the AOL Instant Messenger screen name Maf54, made repeated references to sexual organs and acts.”

  60. 60
    ThymeZone says:

    To me, “sanctimonious” always implies false piety.

    My take on sanctimony is that it’s usually well intentioned, sincere, wrongheaded, and evil. Not necessarily in that order.

  61. 61
    srv says:

    Oh, just a bunch of locker room talk amongst men.

    Or maybe this shows just how bad things are with our corrosive values, that a moderate Republican congressman can be turned into a crazed sexual predator.

    Just how would y’all handle being surrounded by teenage girls wanting to impress you?

  62. 62
    Richard 23 says:

    As far as I can tell, the laws this guy favored were laws against child porn on the Internet and things of that nature. I’m against child porn on the Internet and the people who make money by pushing it, so I don’t have a problem with that. You need to do a better job of explaining what you mean by “laws that can destroy people’s lives.”

    Oh come on. Give me a break. Did Foley try to pass laws to protect against powerful men hitting on young pages and employees? No he did not. He’s a hypocrite and a predator. Perhaps he was more overt and successful with someone we haven’t heard about yet, maybe not. But he certainly tested the limits even if he didn’t cross the line, yet.

    Furiously masturbating to what appears to be kiddie porn in the privacy of one’s own home may be creepy enough. Not saying he did that. We don’t know what materials he has in his home, office or computer. But using one’s position of power to hit on minors is something entirely different. That’s active rather than passive behavior.

    I don’t feel sorry for this guy at all. He could have sought help for his problem instead of inflicting it on his pages. His desire to “help” young people does not cancel out his own predatory behavior.

    Just my two cents.

  63. 63
    Steve says:

    His desire to “help” young people does not cancel out his own predatory behavior.

    It really troubles me to think that you could read my comments and believe that I actually feel this way. Of course it doesn’t make it right, for the love of God!

  64. 64
    Richard 23 says:

    Just how would y’all handle being surrounded by teenage girls wanting to impress you?

    Probably differently than you. But is this somehow relevant?

  65. 65
    Punchy says:

    The kid was asking for it. Did you see how he was dressed? I bet he’s a Democratic activist who was trying to entrap the poor Congressman.

    No, I think the page has a book to sell, and that’s why these accusations are being made.

  66. 66

    Well, I think it’s nice that you can admit you were wrong, John.

    Maybe we who are not categorized on the left are simply more worldly. I don’t know. But I saw those emails, and I immediately identified them as creepy.

  67. 67

    Somehow “hypocrisy” became the worst sin a person can commit. I don’t agree. Bill Bennett may be a hypocrite for trying to regulate people’s morals while being a sleazy guy in his personal life, but the point is he’s being an extra-bad guy by (1) trying to pass bad laws while (2) being a hypocrite about it. That doesn’t mean I have to similarly condemn someone who (1) tries to pass GOOD laws while (2) being a hypocrite about it.

    The hatred of hypocrisy is a Christian values thing. If you look at the teachings of Christ, that was by far one of things he railed about the most. He called the Pharisees hypocrites numerous times.

  68. 68

    Maybe we who are not categorized on the left are simply more worldly

    I think I meant, “we who are categorized as being on the left”. :-)

  69. 69
    sglover says:

    Ok, before I get further caricatured as taking the pro-pervert position, I’ll just drop it.

    I don’t read your remarks that way. Hell, at the risk of “taking the pro-pervert position” myself, I’ve long thought that most of the laws designed to “protect the children” from the “menace of sexual predators” are good examples of a decaying democracy. First, while the “menace” they purport to combat is certainly distasteful, it’s also statistically negligible. Politicians and bluenoses love crowing about these “get tough” laws as a way of demonstrating their “values”. Then, once they’re safely in office, they can get on with the hard work of gutting budgets for children’s health care and education. The “War on Drugs” and so-called “Hate Crime Laws” stem from the same unthinking, demonizing, pandering reflexes.

    If memory serves, when Megan’s (or whoever it was) Law was making its rounds through the states, the legislatures would invariably respond with overwhelming majorities — 95%+, even unanimous approval. Now, it could be that these bills were models of absolutely perfect, just, and lucid law. But when I see a majority like that, I kinda suspect that somebody’s too brain-dead or too scared to ask some obvious questions. Either that, or the old Soviet Politburo must’ve done some absolutely stellar law-making….

  70. 70
    Tsulagi says:

    From the family values party…

    Maf54: Do I make you a little horny ?
    Teen: A little.
    Maf54: Cool.

    These guys continually find new ways to prove to me they provide no value added from the air they use. I have some Republican votes (not Bush!) in my “archives.” I so badly want to delete them.

  71. 71

    If someone likes to have sex with young boys, but tries to compensate for it by passing laws that stop other people from having sex with young boys, I’m not saying it makes up for his underlying creepiness. But I don’t think it makes him WORSE than someone who likes to have sex with young boys, period.

    Oh yeah, one more thing.

    I agree that it doesn’t make them worse. It doesn’t make them better either.

    But I will comment from my examination of human behavior. Someone who is advocating strongly for a law, and I mean very strongly… usually has a personal connection.

    Now you can look at John Walsh or Patty Wetterling, and you can see that personal connection. They lost their own children to predators.

    But Mark Foley? Why? Because he can sympathize? How so? How can he possibly understand? You have to ask that question. Was he abused himself? Or does he abuse others? Or both?

  72. 72
    DougJ says:

    Just how would y’all handle being surrounded by teenage girls wanting to impress you?

    I am and I have no sympathy for those who act unprofessionally in that circumstance. None. But I think this guy is a sicko and I feel sorry for him about that.

  73. 73
    Punchy says:

    Maf54: Do I make you a little horny ?
    Teen: A little.
    Maf54: Cool.

    Is this real, or an Austin Powers quote? If it’s the former….ewwwwwwwwww….

  74. 74
    Tsulagi says:

    Is this real, or an Austin Powers quote?

    That was my first thought too. LOL. Apparently this was one of the IMs shown to Foley that led to his immediate cutting and running.

    Not only do these guys actively work at being assholes, they also make retarded jokes of themselves in the process.

  75. 75
    Pb says:

    Hell, at the risk of “taking the pro-pervert position” myself, I’ve long thought that most of the laws designed to “protect the children” from the “menace of sexual predators” are good examples of a decaying democracy. First, while the “menace” they purport to combat is certainly distasteful, it’s also statistically negligible. Politicians and bluenoses love crowing about these “get tough” laws as a way of demonstrating their “values”.

    I agree, and I saw this quote again today and was reminded of it–and while it might not quite fit what you were saying, it’s perfect on the topic of politicians trying to pass stupid laws.

    “The problem of cat versus bird is as old as time. If we attempt to resolve it by legislation who knows but what we may be called upon to take sides as well in the age old problems of dog versus cat, bird versus bird, or even bird versus worm. In my opinion, the State of Illinois and its local governing bodies already have enough to do without trying to control feline delinquency.

    For these reasons, and not because I love birds the less or cats the more, I veto and withhold my approval from Senate Bill No. 93.” — Adlai Stevenson, Vetoing a Bill that would have imposed fines on owners who allowed cats to run at large, 23 April 1949

  76. 76
    srv says:

    Probably differently than you. But is this somehow relevant?

    Man of steel, you are.

    If you’ve ever spent time around congressional staffs, you’d note a plethora of attractive young females and males. You’d almost wonder if something else is going on, or just the beautiful people aspire to hang out with politicians.

    True story – Clinton could recall the names of a half-dozen or so of my female cousins (teenage to 30, and of course attractive) after just meeting them once. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

    s this real, or an Austin Powers quote? If it’s the former….ewwwwwwwwww….

    He’s just a young female asian prostitute stuck in the body of a republican congressman.

  77. 77
    DougJ says:

    If you’ve ever spent time around congressional staffs, you’d note a plethora of attractive young females and males.

    I know a few staffers and I’m not inclined to agree. I think it’s more that the politicians are so ugly that the staffers look good by comparison. I’m not kidding here — I think it’s true that politics is show business for ugly people.

  78. 78
    Pb says:

    Just how would y’all handle being surrounded by teenage girls wanting to impress you?

    I’d recommend them for psychological evaluation. Oh wait, teenage girls, no need. I’d just ask them what’s the latest in entertainment news, and once they started blabbing about the latest blonde bimbo or hollywood hunk, I’d be fine in any case.

  79. 79
    srv says:

    I know a few staffers and I’m not inclined to agree. I think it’s more that the politicians are so ugly that the staffers look good by comparison.

    Me thinks you probably hang with some liberal hag politicians who never get laid.

  80. 80
    Mac Buckets says:

    To the list of titles applicable to the Republican congressional majority:

    Geez, John. Talking about tarring with a broad brush! So can we call the Democratic minority “drunk-driving murderers?”

  81. 81
    Steve says:

    So can we call the Democratic minority “drunk-driving murderers?”

    And “KKK supporters.” Yep, you can and do.

  82. 82
    Richard Bottoms says:

    Obviously, they should still suffer the consequences of their actions, but I’m loathe to describe the guy as a monster.

    No problem. I’ll do it for you. They are monsters.

    Now being a black man I can’t by any strech on the imagination trust the government to always get the right guy, because they don’t, as 75 ex-death row imates will tell you. So I am not one of the castrate them/exeecute them crowd. At least where the first offense is concerned.

    But emotionally, I want them dead. All of them.

  83. 83
    Richard Bottoms says:

    So can we call the Democratic minority “drunk-driving murderers?”

    No, just Laura Bush.

  84. 84
    ThymeZone says:

    So can we call the Democratic minority “drunk-driving murderers?”

    Myyeeaahhh, I don’t think “drunk driving” is a theme that this administration is going to want to bring up.

  85. 85
    Skip says:

    “Really, I don’t know why any of you even read me. Am I ever right about anything?”

    I believe the right word is Schadenfreude

  86. 86

    […] I Guess We Can Add Pervert […]

  87. 87
    Richard 23 says:

    Here’s more:

    They say he used the screen name Maf54 on these messages provided to ABC News.

    Maf54: You in your boxers, too?
    Teen: Nope, just got home. I had a college interview that went late.
    Maf54: Well, strip down and get relaxed.

    Another message:

    Maf54: What ya wearing?
    Teen: tshirt and shorts
    Maf54: Love to slip them off of you….

    But if you prefer irony:

    Federal authorities say such messages could result in Foley’s prosecution, under some of the same laws he helped to enact.

    Hat tip: AmericaBlog

  88. 88
    Richard 23 says:

    More irony:

    H.R.5749
    Title: To amend title 18, United States Code, to protect youth from exploitation by adults using the Internet, and for other purposes.
    Sponsor: Rep Foley, Mark [FL-16] (introduced 7/10/2006)

  89. 89
    Pb says:

    Oh snap, this story just keeps getting juicier: House GOP Leadership Knew About Foley.

    Yep, nothing like a sex scandal to get the media on alert and investigating Congress again! Sheesh.

  90. 90
    John S. says:

    Myyeeaahhh, I don’t think “drunk driving” is a theme that this administration is going to want to bring up.

    MacBuckets looooves Teddy. But seriously, why not?

    It isn’t like George Bush…er, wait.

    It isn’t like Laura Bush killed anyone by driving…er, wait.

    Aw, dang.

  91. 91
    Angus says:

    This guy is a freak and way creepy, but it is just off base to call him a pedophile, as even a cursory Google search shows. The page was 16 years old, which is the legal age of consent in D.C. and in about 50% of U.S. states.

  92. 92
    jaime says:

    What’s pissing me off now, is this idiot makes his mouth breathing conservative base convinced that all homosexuals are pedophiles.

  93. 93
    Pb says:

    Angus,

    I don’t think it’s necessarily off base, actually it’s common usage. Also, consider the age difference. However, what would you suggest?

  94. 94
    John S. says:

    This guy is a freak and way creepy, but it is just off base to call him a pedophile

    Can we call him a card-carrying member of NAMBLA?

    Which at the very least makes him a pederast.

  95. 95
    Pb says:

    jaime,

    What’s pissing me off now, is this idiot makes his mouth breathing conservative base convinced that all homosexuals are pedophiles.

    If that’s the lesson they take from this, then it doesn’t really matter what the circumstances are, because they are unreasoning. For example, Jim McGreevey isn’t a pedophile. Then again, he isn’t a Republican either. :)

  96. 96
    Steve says:

    This guy is a freak and way creepy, but it is just off base to call him a pedophile, as even a cursory Google search shows. The page was 16 years old, which is the legal age of consent in D.C. and in about 50% of U.S. states.

    The legal age of consent in Florida is 16… but only if the other party is under 24. Otherwise, it’s 18 all the way.

    (1) A person 24 years of age or older who engages in sexual activity with a person 16 or 17 years of age commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. As used in this section, “sexual activity” means oral, anal, or vaginal penetration by, or union with, the sexual organ of another; however, sexual activity does not include an act done for a bona fide medical purpose.

    Maybe your Google searches should be less cursory.

  97. 97
    Pb says:

    And as a bare minimum threshold and a rule of thumb to verify non-creepiness… half your age plus six, baby!

  98. 98
    Steve says:

    Oh snap, this story just keeps getting juicier: House GOP Leadership Knew About Foley.

    That’s stunning. I mean, of course Mac is right that one bad guy doesn’t taint the whole party, but when we find out party leadership knew a year ago and covered it up, that’s a whole different story.

    The Republican Party… so desperate to hold power that they knowingly kept a sexual predator in Congress, as the head of the child sex offender caucus, no less.

    No, there couldn’t be a campaign issue in this, or anything. My God. What utter moral emptiness.

  99. 99
    jaime says:

    I mean, of course Mac is right that one bad guy doesn’t taint the whole party, but when we find out party leadership knew a year ago and covered it up, that’s a whole different story.

    No. What Mac is saying is one bad guy doesn’t taint the Republican party.

  100. 100
    ThymeZone says:

    What Mac is saying is one bad guy doesn’t taint the Republican party.

    If so, then he’s right.

  101. 101
    DougJ says:

    It might be better if we stay away from the word “taint” for the rest of this thread. Unless it comes up in one of Foley’s emails or IM messages, of course.

  102. 102
    Steve says:

    Point to Jaime… and point to DougJ as well. Ugh.

  103. 103
    chopper says:

    A Florida Congressman is, well, the first person I would pick.

    florida? but that’s america’s wang!

  104. 104
    srv says:

    Hmmm. Seems like the House and the Catholic Church leadership may have a few things in common.

    Anyone know the criminal penalties in these new bills for people who know an online crime has been committed but doesn’t report it?

  105. 105
    Richard 23 says:

    Well Red State commenters point out helpfully that he’s a RINO, so not a real Republican. Further down you’ll learn that the liberal media knew about this story quite some time ago and sprung it just in time to help Democrats in the 2006 elections. Another commenter suggests that this may have been entrapment of some kind. Also that Republicans get rid of their bad eggs while Democrats hush up incriminating stories about and stand behind their bad eggs. Interesting stuff.

  106. 106
    John S. says:

    What Mac is saying is one bad guy doesn’t taint the Republican party.

    That is true.

    However, since Foley isn’t the only Republican to get caught up in some sort of scandal or inpropriety recently (Ney, Cunningham, Delay, etc.), it’s hardly a matter of just ONE bad Republican.

  107. 107
    jaime says:

    However, since Foley isn’t the only Republican to get caught up in some sort of scandal or inpropriety recently (Ney, Cunningham, Delay, etc.), it’s hardly a matter of just ONE bad Republican.

    You’re missing the (talking) point here. These are just isolated incidents. Just a large grouping of isolated incidents within a Party in 10 year period of time having nothing whatsoever to do with each other or forming any culture of corruption.

    After all Cynthia McKinney hit a cop and William Jefferson had cash in his freezer.

  108. 108
    Richard Bottoms says:

    Does House Republican leader Denny Hastert have a soft spot for child sex offenders?

    Seems so. Republican House Speaker Denny Hastert has some serious explaining to do, after today’s revelations that they knew about ex-Congressman Mark Foley’s sexscapades a good year ago, and did nothing.

    Whether or not the kid’s parents were fine with letting it go, which the story says is the case, why did Republican House Speaker Denny Hastert permit Foley to remain in the House GOP leadership for almost a year after they knew he was having sex talk with minors online, minors he met on the job?

    Hastert

    Jesus what a great Friday.

    Woodward’s book is the opening October surprise, and now Hastert knew of a Republican member of congress chasing underage pages. Time to go nuclear on his ass.

  109. 109
    jaime says:

    Time to go nuclear on his ass.

    Something’s gotta be done. The Republican strategy is to call Democrats outright pro-terror Nazi sympathing traitors; The last gasp of a pathetic dying beast. The only way to kill this wounded animal is to go for the jugular.

  110. 110
    chopper says:

    Well Red State commenters point out helpfully that he’s a RINO, so not a real Republican.

    by the time monday rolls around they’ll be arguing that he was a dem the whole time.

  111. 111
    Richard 23 says:

    by the time monday rolls around they’ll be arguing that he was a dem the whole time.

    Already seen that one on the ABC blog.

    HOW DID THIS DEMOCRAT INFILTRATE THE GOP?

    Posted by: WEST | Sep 29, 2006 7:17:06 PM

  112. 112
    jaime says:

    The right wing has already convinced itself that Radical Muslim Terrorists are present day Nazis and that Liberals are modern day Communists AND Fascists.

    They will twist themselves into a pretzel and lie to themselves daily to convince themselves that everything that has ever gone wrong the last 6 years is librul media/Clinton/commie/U.N./Soros/Michael Moore/ Democrat’s fault. When they wake up on the 8th of November having had America’s collective boot sunk in their asses they’ll think the entire universe has collapsed in on itself.

  113. 113
    Richard 23 says:

    A couple of funny comments from ABC’s blog:

    This is the problem with conservatives who talk about values and morals that they themselves cannot keep. We should all be like liberals and have no values or morals to struggle with.

    Posted by: Mighty Brickman | Sep 29, 2006 4:53:28 PM

    Don’t worry, ABC News is already producing “The Path to Mark Foley’s Resignation” in which Sandy Berger hacks into Mark Foley’s PC and uses it to stalk a teenage boy.

    Posted by: obsessed | Sep 29, 2006 4:54:33 PM

  114. 114
    tBone says:

    Oh, just a bunch of locker room talk amongst men.

    What kind of locker rooms are you hanging out in, anyway?

    I agree we shouldn’t be too quick to crucify Foley, though. This whole situation could have been easily avoided if those pages had had the good sense to be older, unattractive, and less computer-savvy. Or women.

  115. 115

    If you read Wilhelm Reich’s THE MASS PSYCHOLOGY OF FASCISM, you see how the repression of sexuality from a very early age is important in creating the sexual tension of fascist, repressive states. It’s not surprising that those who are at the cutting edge of repression are also repressed, infantilized pathetic souls.

  116. 116
    Richard Bottoms says:

    by the time monday rolls around they’ll be arguing that he was a dem the whole time.

    These fuckers are toast. Extra flamey.

  117. 117
    srv says:

    you see how the repression of sexuality from a very early age is important in creating the sexual tension of fascist, repressive states.

    There’s a thought. GW didn’t get any at Yale. I wonder what he got at Andover.

  118. 118
    CaseyL says:

    Really, I don’t know why any of you even read me. Am I ever right about anything?

    Yes, more often than not.

    And when you’re wrong, there are glorious, Roman-candle shooting, obscenity-laced, 300+ comment arguments to be had. I’ve learned some really nifty maladictions, hanging around ol’ Balloon-Juice.

    And afterwards, you still like us and we still like you, and we go on and talk about other stuff.

    It’s like a family, only better, because we don’t have to worry about getting one another birthday or holiday presents.

    About Foley:

    1. There seems to be an awful lot of sexual dysfunction in GOP circles. And by “sexual dysfunction,” I don’t mean just your garden variety infidelities (which are eternal and probably inevitable in politics, power=aphrodisiac and alla that) but really squeevy squicky stuff. And, well, there’s a lot of it, and it’s mostly closeted gay stuff by people who are officially homophobes.

    I’m quite sure it’s no accident that the most, um, perverted Congress ever has presided over the most perverted politics ever.

    2. The most charitable interpretation of Foley’s involvement in anti-kiddie porn legislation is that he was horrified by his own impulses, and used the anti-kiddie porn crusade as a kind of atonement. Or, maybe, he thought of it as ongoing DIY absolution: tracking down a child porn provider “canceled out” making sexual advances himself to young men. Human psychology is twisty under the best circumstances; when you’ve got genuine kinks, it gets even twistier.

  119. 119
    CaseyL says:

    Oh, before y’all flame me, I probably should’ve said “boys” rather than “young men.”

  120. 120
    jg says:

    This is timed perfectly with Gonzo saying we need to keep better track of people’s online habits because of the pedophiles.

  121. 121
    Angus says:

    Let me get this argument straight. If both he and the page had been in D.C., he wouldn’t be a pedophile, but because the page was in Florida he is one?

    Unless evidence comes to light about him and teens younger than 16, he’s not a pedophile. Just a run-of-the mill creepy old pervert.

  122. 122
    CaseyL says:

    Angus, I agree with you (there is a diff between pedophilia and ephebephilia).

    But, see, that’s one more delicious irony in the Foley story: the very laws he helped get passed don’t make such fine distinctions.

    Thanks to “sexual predator” laws, there are 18 year old guys who had consenual sex with their 17 year old girlfriends who are now stuck with the “sexual predator” label for their whole lives.

  123. 123
    John Amato says:

    you’re always right about Buffy..

  124. 124
    Richard Bottoms says:

    you’re always right about Buffy..

    True. Anyone who likes Buffy can’t be all bad.

    Unless it’s Jonah Goldberg.

  125. 125
    John S. says:

    He is a pederast, pure and simple.

  126. 126
    VidaLoca says:

    Really, I don’t know why any of you even read me. Am I ever right about anything?

    You get the important stuff right. And when you make a mistake you admit it. You’re open minded without being empty-headed.

    And furthermore, what Casey said.

    But since we’re on the topic of being “right about anything” — does this mean you’re going to go back an re-examine that post about Juan Cole from a month or so ago? :)

  127. 127
    DougJ says:

    Looks like Boehner might be stabbing Hastert in the back here:

    House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) told The Washington Post last night that he had learned this spring of some “contact” between Foley and a 16-year-old page. Boehner said he told House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), and that Hastert assured him “we’re taking care of it.”

  128. 128
    DougJ says:

    Sorry, here’s the right link

  129. 129
    VidaLoca says:

    Really, I don’t know why any of you even read me. Am I ever right about anything?

    In a slightly more serious vein, it just occurred to me that if you ever get the idea to run for office I thing you should let us know — I suspect that more than a few of us would support you; at least to speak for myself I would. And I’m pretty much of a moonbat; you’d probably get a lot more support from more normal people.

    Really — if the Republican party is ever going to mean anything again, some people with integrity are going to have to come forward to make it happen, to rebuild it into something better than what it has become. One way to do that is by holding office. I think you might be quite good at it.

    Much potential have you, young padawan…

  130. 130
    Krista says:

    Really, I don’t know why any of you even read me.

    Because when you’re on, you’re thought-provoking and can write a fantastic rant. And when you’re off, we get to gang up on you mercilessly.

    It’s win-win for us, either way.

  131. 131
    sglover says:

    Something’s gotta be done. The Republican strategy is to call Democrats outright pro-terror Nazi sympathing traitors; The last gasp of a pathetic dying beast. The only way to kill this wounded animal is to go for the jugular.

    YES!

    It is time for Republicans to reap what they have sown. Card-carrying Dems — and those like me on the verge of throwing their cards away — need to call, write, shout at the party leadership and get them to hammer on this story from now until election day. This is the kind of Republican scumbuggery that even your average yahoo can understand, and just in case I didn’t make it clear, this is Republican scumbuggery.

    Call ’em pigfuckers, just to make ’em deny it!

  132. 132
    VidaLoca says:

    It is time for Republicans to reap what they have sown.

    Why yes, it is, isn’t it. So Hastert and Boehner know about this “problem” and decide to do nothing about it because they don’t want to risk losing a seat. Somebody else knew about it too, though, and up it pops — five weeks before the election, taking everybody’s mind off the torture vote yesterday. Could be coincidence of course.

  133. 133
    DougJ says:

    I do think that, in all seriousness, this is kind of bad of Denny and Reynolds. Not as bad as legalizing torture, but bad. They should have at least taken him off the Missing and Exploited Children Caucus. This is very irresponsible. It really is.

  134. 134
    CaseyL says:

    VidaLoca, I kind of doubt the GOP is behind this latest batch of revelations. Since it involves the actual leadership and all.

    As for taking attention away from the torture bill… I’m not really sure how much most voters really paid attention to the torture bill. Because I think at this point voters have already either decided to toss the GOP out, or decided there’s no limit to what the GOP can do and still get their vote.

    Sex scandals, on the other hand, are something that the MSM and the public are always happy to focus on. It sure can’t help the GOP, put it that way.

  135. 135
    VidaLoca says:

    Casey,

    Sorry if I was unclear. I was speculating that the Democrats might have had a hand in the leak. They’d stand to benefit from that directly. w.r.t the torture issue, it distracts from any gain the Republicans might have made from their position, as it distracts from the exposure of the Democrats failure to do much of anything to oppose it.

  136. 136
    jg says:

    Really, I don’t know why any of you even read me.

    I read you because whether I agree with you or not I believe you are making a point about an issue because you have a point to make about the issue. Not because you want us to become influenced by the point you’re making. When you make a post about how stupid the democrats were for not doing whatever it isn’t with the intent of conducting a ‘hate democrats’ chorus in the comments section. Its to point out how you thought it was a stupid thing to do. I don’t detect an ulterior motive is what I mean. The difference between your blog posts and most bloggers left and right is like the difference between happening across someone standing on a soapbox saying whats pissing him off and why versus attending a revival. There’s a whole different vibe here than in other places.

  137. 137
    Pb says:

    *** Update ***

    Woah.

    Woah, indeed. Not tonight? AP English? Anyhow, that would have been something if his mom had caught them, then or at any other time.

  138. 138
    Proud Liberal says:

    Congressman Foley on Clinton 1998:

    WASHINGTON — For more than a week, members of Congress said they would avoid partisan politics when they got Kenneth Starr’s report on President Clinton. But when they finally saw it Friday, they split along party lines.

    Republicans were aghast at Clinton’s behavior, with many saying it showed he had lied and abused his power.

    “It’s vile,” said Rep. Mark Foley, R-West Palm Beach. “It’s more sad than anything else, to see someone with such potential throw it all down the drain because of a sexual addiction.”

    no further comment necessary.

  139. 139
    Paul L. says:

    I love you tolerant liberal types.
    Mark Foley, Democrats Target A Gay Man

    So right now, we know as fact that Mark Foley is not a pedophile, he has not broken any sexual consent laws nor has he violated any marriage vows.

    Homophobes.

  140. 140
    demimondian says:

    Hey, Paul! Good to see you.

    Found the evidence showing Qana was a fraud yet?

  141. 141
    Proud Liberal says:

    Paul? Democrats target Foley? Democrats didn’t know a thing about Foley’s indiscretion with the congressional pages. Apparently the leadership of the Republican party knew for a year or so. And they did nothing. And these were the same bozo’s that were so “morally outraged” and Clinton’s consentual affair with an adult. Kinda interesting ain’t it?

  142. 142
    over it says:

    First off…ewwwwwwwwww, yuck, gross, gag, nasty….those text messages were just plain wrong. And, as a young female, I don’t care if he was writing them to a boy or a girl. It is wrong and nasty either way.

    Now, this:

    It might be better if we stay away from the word “taint” for the rest of this thread.

    made me laugh. Because it reminded me of a Colbert Report episode I was watching with my mom and dad. He was going on and on about ‘taint’….and my folks had no idea what it meant. I was red-faced and in near tears and they kept asking “what? what’s so funny?”. Thankfully, Colbert explained it at the end of the ‘skit’ so that I would not have to.

    But, yeah, if others in Congress knew about it and did nothing…they need to be called out and made to atone as well. Not saying that they should resign…but…some major ‘mea culpa’ing’ is needed.

    ick.

  143. 143
    ThymeZone says:

    Mr. Woodward reports that when he told Mr. Rumsfeld that the number of insurgent attacks was going up, the defense secretary replied that they’re now “categorizing more things as attacks.” Mr. Woodward quotes Mr. Rumsfeld as saying, “A random round can be an attack and all the way up to killing 50 people someplace. So you’ve got a whole fruit bowl of different things — a banana and an apple and an orange.”

    Mr. Woodward adds: “I was speechless. Even with the loosest and most careless use of language and analogy, I did not understand how the secretary of defense would compare insurgent attacks to a ‘fruit bowl,’ a metaphor that stripped them of all urgency and emotion.

    Just a taste of the material that is coming your way in the next few days.

    This Foley thing is going to be less than “a comma,” to borrow GWB’s phrase. By Columbus Day, maybe nobody will even remember Foley. But they are going to be talking about Woodward’s book, which plumbs the depths of the madness and stupidity inside the White House.

    (Emphasis in the blockquote, mine).

  144. 144
    over it says:

    **Correction**

    The ‘taint’ bit was not from The Colbert Report, it was from The Daily Show. Here it is http://tinyurl.com/fpach

    Yeah, I know…pretty tasteless…but, imagine watching it with your parents. I would say imagine watching it with my parents…but…I guess that would be pretty difficult.

  145. 145

    Apparently in Florida they can’t replace his name on the ballot.

    Still it’s stunning that the Republican party knew about his antics a year ago and choose to hide them rather than let this out in the open. That just seems utterly immoral, as well as strategically stupid.

  146. 146

    That taint is awesome

  147. 147
    ThymeZone says:

    There’s the president, who once said, “I don’t have the foggiest idea about what I think about international, foreign policy,” deciding that he’s going to remake the Middle East and alter the course of American foreign policy. There’s his father, former President George Herbert Walker Bush (who went to war against the same country a decade ago), worrying about the wisdom of another war but reluctant to offer his opinions to his son because he believes in the principle of “let him be himself.” There’s the president’s national security adviser whining to him that the defense secretary won’t return her phone calls. And there’s the president and Karl Rove, his chief political adviser, trading fart jokes.

    Woodward.

  148. 148
    Richard Bottoms says:

    I love you tolerant liberal types.

    Bugger off. Old men hitting on boys or girls under 18 is just creepy. No the crime here is the coverup, especially of someone who headed the committee charged with protecting kids.

    I don’t give a damn about Foley. That a single man felt he had to be a closet case is his problem, not mine. I like gay people, and that includes my sister. Bible thumping Republicans though are kindof in a box.

    Hastert needs to resign.

  149. 149
    Mr SeeMore says:

    Smells of a coverup. I mean the emails were revealed last year. So, why has it taken this long to take the pervert down.
    Seems to me we should be looking at others in congress that were hoping/trying to let this information be swept under the rug.
    Lastly, there are no Rep/Dem perverts…there are just perverts… period.

  150. 150
    Steve says:

    So right now, we know as fact that Mark Foley is not a pedophile, he has not broken any sexual consent laws nor has he violated any marriage vows.

    I think it’s terrible that the Republicans forced this man to resign when he had done nothing wrong! Don’t you, Paul?

    Seriously, it’s like there’s no hole too deep for you to crawl into. Yes, please, defend this guy from the unfair partisan attacks.

  151. 151
    ThymeZone says:

    I think it’s terrible that the Republicans forced this man to resign when he had done nothing wrong! Don’t you, Paul?

    Clearly, getting a blowjob from a 25-year-old female is much worse than getting one from a 16-year-old male.

    For reasons that are classified, lest the terrorists win.

  152. 152
    Mac Buckets says:

    I think it’s terrible that the Republicans forced this man to resign when he had done nothing wrong! Don’t you, Paul?

    He could’ve be forgiven had he recorded “Thriller.”

    (Mental note: Possible Jacko-esque nickname for Foley — “The King of GOP?”)

  153. 153
    RSA says:

    I love you tolerant liberal types.

    I suppose all you liberals would be happier if Foley had been molesting dogs.

  154. 154
    Proud Liberal says:

    This Foley thing is going to be less than “a comma,” to borrow GWB’s phrase. By Columbus Day, maybe nobody will even remember Foley. But they are going to be talking about Woodward’s book, which plumbs the depths of the madness and stupidity inside the White House.

    I think you may be wrong about this Paul. While the Woodward book is going to offer some juciy morsels, every one of which I am going to enjoy, it is really not saying anything that we dont’ know (those of us that are not bush authoritarian cultists such as MacBuckets, Darrell and subPar).

    But the Foley situation could get worse. Much worse for the Republicans. It seems that the Republican leadership knew about this for a year. They intentionally kept it from the Democrats. The let Foley continue on his merry way. This plays right into the Dems hands. Corrupt republicans protecting their own. Family values?

    Lets remember, its congress thats running this November, not Bush. The more we have the “throw the bums out” sentiment the better for the Dems. I don’t know if congress’ approval rating can go any lower than where it already is, but this just may get them in single digits. Again, its not just Foley but the whole Republican leadership that is going to be tarnished.

    And trust me, the public is much more attentive to a sex scandal than whether Rummy was returning Rice’s phone calls. Wish it were not so, but thems is the facts.

    In either case, I think I’m just going to sit back and watch with a bag of popcorn to see how this one unfolds.

  155. 155
    Tsulagi says:

    Have to give them credit, at the end of a shitty week, the Republican “Do I make you a little horny?” Party delivered comedy gold as only they can. Thanks for the laughs; appreciate it.

    Retardocon self image: Jack Bauer, but taller.
    Reality: Austin Powers, but always incompetent plus an underage boy fetish.

    Maybe Tube Stevens can hold some meetings with his lesser informed buds to let them know the secret that when the intertrucks make their deliveries, the packages don’t vanish.

  156. 156
    ThymeZone says:

    I think you may be wrong about this Paul.

    Who’s Paul? I’m Thyme, but you can call me Herb.

  157. 157
    Proud Liberal says:

    Can we finally put to rest the malarky about the Republicans being the party of family values?

    Family Value Republicans

  158. 158
    Proud Liberal says:

    Who’s Paul? I’m Thyme

    whatever Paul.

  159. 159
    ThymeZone says:

    I’m an Herb. A dried Herb, but an Herb nonetheless.

    Call me Herb.

  160. 160
    Proud Liberal says:

    Herb? aren’t you the former ppGaz… and ppGaz wasn’t no herb….

  161. 161
    ThymeZone says:

    Herb?

    Yes, I’m an Herb. Call me Herb.

  162. 162
    Skip says:

    Let’s see how many of us we can get banned by John:

    Jonah Goldberg on Foley:

    “I have no worthwhile instapunditry. But, I think if the allegations are true this is just one more reason to add to the phonebook-sized list of reasons why grown men shouldn’t mess around with underage boys. It goes some considerable distance after, “it’s gross” and a good bit before “it takes time away from yard work.”

  163. 163
    Barrasso says:

    Proud Liberal,

    that link is quite a list, but none of that would have happened if it weren’t for the Clenis destroying their values. I heard Laura Ingraham on her radio show say that when she visited the White House recently that it was all she could think about. She actually said that, as if it didn’t tell you more about her than she should let on.

  164. 164
    Steve says:

    “I have no worthwhile instapunditry. But, I think if the allegations are true this is just one more reason to add to the phonebook-sized list of reasons why grown men shouldn’t mess around with underage boys. It goes some considerable distance after, “it’s gross” and a good bit before “it takes time away from yard work.”

    What the…?

  165. 165
    Skip says:

    Jonah Goldberg: “I have no worthwhile instapunditry. But, I think if the allegations are true this is just one more reason to add to the phonebook-sized list of reasons why grown men shouldn’t mess around with underage boys. It goes some considerable distance after, “it’s gross” and a good bit before “it takes time away from yard work.”

    Reaction: “What the…?”

    Exactly.

  166. 166
    sglover says:

    Goldberg’s remark is what you get when you know you have to crank out some kind, any kind, of disinfo, but there’s simply nothing good to work with. It’s the Zen koan approach to shilling.

    Or maybe fat Jonah’s got a thing for eccentric IM’s himself? Reading his remark, I could almost guess that he speaks from experience.

    Purely speculation, of course. But if anybody else would like to speculate, here or on other blogs…. Well, I’d just like to see fat Jonah deny it, is all….

  167. 167
    Skip says:

    John is reaching for the button.

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. […] I Guess We Can Add Pervert […]

  2. Republican Foley Resigns Over Messages To Minor

    Oh boy:Saying he was “deeply sorry,” Congressman Mark Foley (R-FL…

Comments are closed.