Patterico's Pontifications

Yep.

Christoph (9824e6) — 9/29/2006 @ 10:03 pm

Foley immediately resigns due to incriminating emails. Clinton lies and toughs it out despite incriminating semen. What a wicked world we live in.

PC14 (98b75e) — 9/29/2006 @ 10:35 pm

Yeah, well, Clinton was a dishonest husband and, worse from a leadership perspective, a perjurer.

But unless the allegations of rape and murder against him are true, and I’m unaware of any convincing evidence that they are despite my suspicions (of the first charge, less the second), staining a 25-year old intern’s dress with semen volunatarily placed there is not inherently wrong.

(Ahem, if I were single or if my girlfriend were an intern, it doesn’t sound like anything that would bug me at all!)

Using your Congressional position to bait your teenage pages into sex or sexual discussions, obviously attempting to seduce if not corrupt them, is several orders of magnitude worse.

He deserved to resign instantly and he did. I will not give him credit for this, however. He had no choice to speak of.

Let the criminal investigators do their work next.

Monica Lewinski, however sullied the affair was and unfair to Hilary Clinton, was not a crime. There’s a big difference, weird as it is for me to be defending Bill Clinton.

But Monica, dude… seriously…

Christoph (9824e6) — 9/29/2006 @ 10:42 pm

ABC knew they had destroyed this guy – from what I read they confronted him with the chat stuff and he folded immediately. So what’s with publishing the chat? How hard is it if you go to this guy’s high school to figure out which lacrosse player was a Congressional page? If he was from even a relatively small town, you could probably just check the local newspaper and crossref the lacrosse team photo from last year’s annual. Alls I’m saying is it just seems irresponsible and gratuitous.

fishstickhead (d90052) — 9/30/2006 @ 12:10 am

It’s news, dude.

It’s big, big news to show that a member of the Congressional leadership and a member of a Congressional committee for exploited youth is propositioning them.

I’m with Brian Ross and ABC on this one. Again.

And it’s not about destroying him… that’s important considering what he did, but it’s also about protecting teenagers, congressional pages, and those that follow as well as others that are working now.

Christoph (9824e6) — 9/30/2006 @ 12:28 am

The Washington Post article on this says that Majority Leader Boehner told them that he knew about it last Spring and that he told Speaker Hastert; it adds that he then called back and said he wasn’t sure, in retrospect, that he’d talked to the Speaker.

Nevertheless, if it’s true that the Majority Leader knew about it last Spring and that nothing was done …

aphrael (3bacf3) — 9/30/2006 @ 12:34 am

No, Monica Lewinsky was not a crime. The affair was a blatant abuse of power. To continue to reduce her to a punchline years later, a woman who is pretty yet battles weight, further shows the real victim in the scandal. (I’m surprised you let Clinton off the hook, too.)

And no, it wasn’t unfair to Hillary at all. Were it the first offense or an obvious smear job, maybe we could call it a couple’s private affair. But the sham really started with the New Hampshire primaries. We saw a wife who was perfectly content to live with her husband’s sexual addiction as long as their ambitions were in place. All in exchange for playing by the media rulebook. Spatulas; warm cookies; heartfelt interviews by the fireplace.

Hillary Clinton traded out her own self-worth to further her husband’s political goals and secure her own political dreams. She is no one’s fool. And she is certainly not a victim.

( But Monica, dude… seriously… )

Vermont Neighbor (456914) — 9/30/2006 @ 12:52 am

Sorry Christoph – should have been more clear – no problem with ABC’s reporting – it’s just that the details revealed in the published chat (the pdf on The Blotter site) along with the other reporting mean that it’s certain that the kid involved is going to be outed as a kid who sits in his room talking to 50+ year-old guys about masturbatory technique. His name won’t be printed, surely, but his classmates and teachers and sheesh – his own mother are gonna have a little more insight into the guy than they ever needed to have. He doesn’t sound like a particularly fragile person, but at 17, I think I would have been pretty freaking mortified.

fishstickhead (d90052) — 9/30/2006 @ 12:56 am

There. Are. No. Excuses.
Jail Time.

paul from fl (464e99) — 9/30/2006 @ 5:24 am

Carefully putting aside any same-sex misgivings, and even accepting the weak argument that 16 is over the age of consent in some states, what’s really offensive is that this guy was IN CHARGE of crafting laws to prevent this kind of predation.

I can only imagine what this guy was doing with all the “evidence” that the committee collected.

Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 9/30/2006 @ 12:07 pm

I don’t accept that Foley – but for his perversion – would have made the better Congressman. Races are commonly decided by undecideds, independents and party-switchers. Of whom, I suspect, none prowl havens such as these.

steve (fa7a59) — 9/30/2006 @ 12:22 pm

Why did’nt the leadership take care of this last year when they knew about it? If they knew – others did too. If it was criminal it should have been dealt with asap. It is not a suprise it “came out” (to use a bad pun) a few weeks before the election. If it was not a crime he may have still survived politically ala Barney Frank.

Gbear (c22f1c) — 9/30/2006 @ 1:22 pm

There. Are. No. Excuses.
Jail Time.

What about for the people who did not report him?

actus (10527e) — 9/30/2006 @ 1:28 pm

“What about for the people who did not report him?”

The pages? Maybe you want them in the same jail cell?

nk (f58916) — 9/30/2006 @ 1:42 pm

I’m glad a scumbag like Foley is gone, but a q for you lawyers: what law did he break?

My understanding is that he is single and that the lads he propositioned were of the age of consent. Is that so? And if so…?

ras (a646fc) — 9/30/2006 @ 1:44 pm

Some moron on a site I will not link made the argument that since in Washington DC the age of consent is 16 no crime had been committed and this was nothing more than the outing of a gay Republican by Democrats. Anybody here that Republican or that “gay”?

nk (f58916) — 9/30/2006 @ 1:48 pm

Ras, we crossposted. Honestly, I was not talking about you. But just go right on ahead and tell me that that is normative gay male behavior.

nk (f58916) — 9/30/2006 @ 1:51 pm

The pages? Maybe you want them in the same jail cell?

The leadership.

But just go right on ahead and tell me that that is normative gay male behavior.

I think you mean ‘normal.’ I don’t know if its normal. But it might not be illegal.

actus (10527e) — 9/30/2006 @ 2:04 pm

I’m with Gbear #12. The leadership has some explaining to do.

I heard he was Chair of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children. If the House leadership had even a hint of this and let him keep that position (let alone his seat, let alone his freedom) then they have completely lost my support.

I’m waiting for an explanation, and my patience will not last a month.

Amphipolis (fb9e95) — 9/30/2006 @ 2:05 pm

No, actus! I mean “normative”. Does the majority of gay men attempt to seduce 16-year old boys? And pay close attention to whom I am attacking. Is the moron I mentioned above a gay supporter or a very subtle gay basher?

As for the leadership, I heard on the radio that Boehner (spelling, the Louisianna guy who employed the page anyway) is backing off on his statement as to when he notified Hastert.

nk (41da82) — 9/30/2006 @ 2:18 pm

Does the majority of gay men attempt to seduce 16-year old boys?

None that I know do it. But thats a new use of the word ‘normative.’

As for the leadership, I heard on the radio that Boehner (spelling, the Louisianna guy who employed the page anyway) is backing off on his statement as to when he notified Hastert.

Boner is in the leadership too.

actus (10527e) — 9/30/2006 @ 2:23 pm

nk,

But just go right on ahead and tell me that that is normative gay male behavior.

I certainly hope it isn’t, which is why I called him a scumbag. But some comments preceding mine called for jail for the guy, which is why I wanted to know, and still do, what law did he break?

Moreover, and here I risk digging myself in deeper (dig, ras, dig!) … if this was all done between two consenting people of legal age, isn’t that what liberal-minded progressives have been telling us is A-OK for yonks now?

Shouldn’t progressives in fact be pleased that these two people could express their sexuality as they did? Shouldn’t progressives be condemning the judgmentalism of those who would criticize love or sexuality simply for being different?

Progressives, your comments on that?

ras (a646fc) — 9/30/2006 @ 3:47 pm

Shouldn’t progressives in fact be pleased that these two people could express their sexuality as they did?

As a progressive, I would be quite pleased if more republican politicians did so, just as this one.

actus (10527e) — 9/30/2006 @ 3:51 pm

actus,

You dodge the q, which says much. Run, liberal, run.

ras (a646fc) — 9/30/2006 @ 3:53 pm

C’mon actus, are you or aren’t you pleased that two people of the age of consent could express their own sexuality in their own way? Isn’t that a beautiful thing according to progressive doctrine?

Y/N, buddy boy?

ras (a646fc) — 9/30/2006 @ 4:02 pm

C’mon actus, are you or aren’t you pleased that two people of the age of consent could express their own sexuality in their own way?

Yes. It should happen more. And we should respect their privacy if they’re not doing anything illegal.

actus (10527e) — 9/30/2006 @ 4:08 pm

“I certainly hope it isn’t, which is why I called him a scumbag. But some comments preceding mine called for jail for the guy, which is why I wanted to know, and still do, what law did he break?”

Yeah, Patterico, what is the law in this case?

In Canada, it is against the law to either touch in a sexual manner (including kissing) anyone under the age of 14 (18 if you’re in a position of “trust and authority”) or to request that a person under 14 (again, 18 if you’re in a position of “trust and authority”) touch either the offender or themselves or any third person in a sexual manner.

The newly elected Conservative government of Stephen Harper wants to raise the minimum age of consent to 16, so let’s not have a discussion over whether 14 is too young.

I’m interested in current law.

In Canada, it’s dubious that you could get a conviction for asking even a child a sexual question or series of questions… provided the adult didn’t touch the child or counsel them to touch in a sexual manner.

We had a case like that involving blatant sexual talk over multiple sessions and a judge threw it out.

Anyway, I see nothing in this, abusive as it is, that Foley crossed that line to suggesting actual sexual activity of any type. He was still “grooming” his victims — whom he was definitely in a position of trust and authority over.

So, while, politically he had to go and damn right about it… is there an “offense tending to corrupt a minor” or similar charge in your justice system? We have something like it in ours, although the test is rather steep.

Basically, our courts don’t want to criminalize talking with children about sex (parents, cousellors, older siblings, trusted friends of the family), so there’s much room for the defense in all but the most obviously heinous cases.

What is the relevant law, statutory and case, there? Did he break any? Can he be convicted?

Christoph (9824e6) — 9/30/2006 @ 4:13 pm

actus,

Yes. It should happen more. And we should respect their privacy if they’re not doing anything illegal.

So if this sort of conduct were to be criminalized, making it illegal, you would then be in favor of intrusive measures to prevent it?

I may be parsing your words too literally, so let me know, but you did specifically say “illegal.”

In any event, we have one out of one progressives voting so far that, unless some new evidence surfaces, this was a beautiful thing that should happen more often.

Any other progressives wanna comment?

ras (a646fc) — 9/30/2006 @ 4:23 pm

So if this sort of conduct were to be criminalized, making it illegal, you would then be in favor of intrusive measures to prevent it?

Not so much.

In any event, we have one out of one progressives voting so far that, unless some new evidence surfaces, this was a beautiful thing that should happen more often.

I’m not so clear on what you think should happen more often. I don’t think supervisors should have sexual discussions with their subordinates more often, for example.

actus (10527e) — 9/30/2006 @ 4:30 pm

In any event, we have one out of one progressives voting so far that, unless some new evidence surfaces, this was a beautiful thing that should happen more often.

Also, and I was not aware of this earlier, the young man seemed to object to the emails, calling them ‘sick’ or ‘creepy.’ Not so beautiful. Should not happen more often.

actus (10527e) — 9/30/2006 @ 5:51 pm

C’mon actus, are you or aren’t you pleased that two people of the age of consent could express their own sexuality in their own way? Isn’t that a beautiful thing according to progressive doctrine?

I’m not sure what the “gotcha” is supposed to be here, but yes, if in fact two people the age of consent are consensually (i.e. mutually) “expressing their sexuality in their own way,” it’s not the business of the state to prevent it. Obvious exceptions would include cases of victimization, which tends to occur in the form of a power imbalance.

I (progressive) have a problem with sex and/or relationships that are unequal in terms of power. In this case, other than the disgusting, predatory nature in which Foley deliberately targeted underage kids, there is an obvious, huge imbalance of power between him and even congressional staff members, to say nothing of the congressional pages. I pretty much agree with the notion of age of consent (except in places where it’s like 13), but I’d have more trouble with an 18 year old and a 40 year old than I would with a 19 year old and a 17 year old, for example. The difference? Huge imbalance of power/experience.

But, after we’ve drawn our line for “how young is too young,” I don’t believe that the state should get involved otherwise–even given an imbalance of power. This is, afterall, America.

Tom (eb6b88) — 10/1/2006 @ 12:18 am

You know, what boggles my mind is how Mr Foley ever thought that he could get away with this crap. You just can’t hold the position Mr Foley did, on a comittee that dealt with missing and exploited children, and not know that sending anything by the internet along such lines is to open yourself to exposure.

We’re reading all the time about perverts getting caught via internet stings and stuff like that. You’ve just got to know that, sooner or later, you’re going to get caught.

It might be the case that Mr Foley didn’t actually break the law; I just don’t know. But that is almost beside the point: he might avoid jail, but his life is ruined — or at least I hope that it is.

Time to check his passport, and see if he’s ever visited Thailand.

Dana (1d5902) — 10/1/2006 @ 5:46 am

So Actus, if Foley was a Scoutleader and the boy a youth member of his troop that would be ok with you? Or a teacher and a student, or a Coach and team member?

paul from fl (464e99) — 10/1/2006 @ 8:08 am

So Actus, if Foley was a Scoutleader and the boy a youth member of his troop that would be ok with you? Or a teacher and a student, or a Coach and team member?

There are going to be weird power dynamics there too. If the boys think it’s creepy and sick, then i’m not going to be ‘ok with it.’ But in general i think 16 and 17 year old boys can decide who to have sex (or, really, who to talk about sex) with. The problem comes when that decision is coerced or otherwise influenced by the power dynamics in the relationship.

actus (10527e) — 10/1/2006 @ 8:22 am

The problem comes when that decision is coerced or otherwise influenced by the power dynamics in the relationship.

Well said, actus.

Tom (eb6b88) — 10/1/2006 @ 6:36 pm

The problem comes when that decision is coerced or otherwise influenced by the power dynamics in the relationship.

Well said… if only liberal groups saw Clinton’s indiscretions that way. It’s abuse of power for all these guys who happen to think their desk on the Hill makes them special and somehow above the law.

Vermont Neighbor (456914) — 10/1/2006 @ 7:50 pm

Well said… if only liberal groups saw Clinton’s indiscretions that way. It’s abuse of power for all these guys who happen to think their desk on the Hill makes them special and somehow above the law.

Vermont Neighbor, I don’t think it’s the abuse of power so much as the breaking of a trust. I think that’s where the conflict lies. I have a certain expection of behavior from my elected officials.
I also understand that temptation is a powerful thing. I think too, that we expect someone to aspire to the highest moral standard of our country when governing. As one of Mr. Foley’s former constituents, I can state that he didn’t not honor that trust, nor aspire to the higher moral standard. So we want him gone. Jail time should be considered in order to inform not only those that come after Mr. Foley, but to evaluate our moral standard. A slap on the wrist,a quickie resignation and blissful obscurity? Hmmm for people with certain appetites, that maybe an acceptable price to pay.

paul from fl (464e99) — 10/2/2006 @ 6:14 am

As an out gay man and a civic leader in my community I agree with the strings that discuss the power dynamic as the central issue IF 16 is the legal age of consent. It’s preditory manipulation, plain and simple. Most of the country however will look badly upon this if the young man is under 18, regardless of DC’s consent age.
MY biggest issue with this is that the R’s kept it mumm for over a year so they could keep his seat. That’s the part that pisses me off — and really shows what’s wrong with American politics today. D or R – doesn’t matter.

Warlord (655844) — 10/2/2006 @ 11:44 am

first a correction;

can state that he didn’t not honor that trust

Should read:

can state that he did not honr that trust

Warlord; I think we need to ascertain what the leadership actually knew before we revile them. At first glance it seems that Foley was ordered to cease ‘overfriendly’ communications and that the parents of the page had left it at that. So some action was taken.
Once the leadership became aware of the lurid details, then I suspect they (leadership) suggested his immediate resignation.

paul from fl (464e99) — 10/2/2006 @ 11:55 am

I’ll give you that one, FL. You’re correct. But still — I’d really like to know what constituted an “overly friendly” email.
I’m really trying not to be partisan on this one, but GEEZ!!!! I mean come on!
And I just have to say it, if the dude had been a D, you know the R’s would have jumped on this with just as much of a “blood in the water” reaction as the D’s are now.
I’m just sorry this is giving us gay guys another black eye we don’t need. Though it’s interesting what happens to men in powerful positions that are not allowed to express their sexuality in a healthy way — congressmen, priests…i see a pattern forming….

Warlord (655844) — 10/2/2006 @ 1:39 pm

9/29/2006

Foley: Sicko

42 Responses to “Foley: Sicko”

Favorite Sites

Links

Patterico Sells Out