Democrats & Liberals Archives

Republican Party to America: We protect pedophiles

The Foley scandal has showed America and the world what the Republican Party and their operatives are all about. The true colors of the Republican Party are clear: The Republican Party protects pedophiles.

Yes; it is that simple.

When, in 2000 (link), a page confides in a representative about inappropriate, sexual messages from then Congressman Foley and nothing is done to stop this abhorrent behavior. The Republican Party protects pedophiles.

When the Republican members of the House Page Board, the only members on the board to know of Foley’s despicable behavior, decide to contact the RNC before contacting the authorities (to date, they STILL haven’t contacted the authorities) and hide this information from the other members on the board who happen to be Democrats (link); The Republican Party protects pedophiles.

When the speaker of the house decides that, upon hearing news of Foley’s emails, he will protect his job and his party over the children entrusted to the page program, The Republican Party protects pedophiles.

When the broadcast arm of the Republican Party intentionally attempts to mislead the reporting of this story by claiming that Foley was Democrat (link) , The Republican Party and Fox protect pedophiles.

And when others in the media begin some conspiracy theory about a this Foley matter is nothing but another plot from the Democratic party (link); The Republican Party and their paid opine authors protect pedophiles.

Let alone the whack-job pundit called Ann Coulter who decides it’s more important to slander a democrat than loathe the horrific actions of someone of her own party. (link). How dare you.

And no, you can’t give a little protection to pedophiles; it’s binary. As George W. Bush would say, ‘You’re either with us or against us.” So either you do something to protect the children or you support the pedophiles. For me, and I believe most people, it’s pretty clear; you put aside your petty party differences and support the children.

Yet host of Republicans, many high ranking operatives, chose to support the named pedophile of their party and try to cover-up the story rather than protect the children in the House Page program.

How dare you.

When bad cops are protected by other cops, the community never trusts the badge again.

When an archdiocese pays off a family and moves a pedophile priest to another parish instead of having the pedophile arrested. The archdiocese is just as guilty as the pedophile.

And when a political party protects a pedophile solely on the basis of their party affiliation, the party supports the pedophile, period; it’s binary.

How dare you put your party first and our children last.

How dare you cover-up a pedophile.

This shouldn’t be about party vs party. This should be solely about protecting our children.

There are dozens of cases about teachers, foster parents and boy scouts in similar situations that school boards, foster parent agencies and the Boy Scouts of America dealt directly to the issue to address the pedophile that infiltrated their organizations. Those organizations are only to blame if they do nothing to stop the current behavior and put in stopgap procedures to prevent a future occurrence. All school districts have strict, zero-tolerance policies in place and chose to kick the pedophile out first and then deal with the full investigation later. It may not be perfect, but it deals with the direct, localized safety of their children. I suppose that the school districts feel that it’s cheaper to kick out the teacher first at the first hint upon hearing of such cases rather than allow the behavior to continue and risk lawsuits from multiple families. In any case, it’s about protecting the children.

How dare you.

Posted by john trevisani at October 9, 2006 11:23 AM
Comment #187120

Just another example of Republican “family values”. Well said, John.

Posted by: ElliottBay at October 9, 2006 11:41 AM
Comment #187124

More simply put: it’s a crime. He should be arrested and charged. It shouldn’t be a debate for a political committee. He should be tried by a jury of his peers and if found guilty (which according to evidence presented by the media, there’s no question of his guilt…but not for the media to decide), sentenced accordingly.

Unless I missed his arrest and posting of bail in the news?

Posted by: Thomas R at October 9, 2006 11:44 AM
Comment #187129

Lets see would you part of the group that supports Partial birth abortion’s?Or a part of the group that insist’s on laws that allow child rapest to walk the streets of America.Talking about calling the kettle black!

Posted by: petro at October 9, 2006 11:50 AM
Comment #187131

john trevasani, your proposition is as false as it can be. We all know the Republican Party DOES NOT protect pedophiles if they are Democrat, Green, Independent, etc.

So, your universal statement about their protecting pedophiles is absurd on its face. They only protect their own pedophiles. Man, anyone can see that.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 9, 2006 11:51 AM
Comment #187132

Bravo, John! Nicely done.

Posted by: Adrienne at October 9, 2006 11:53 AM
Comment #187134


john treva(i)sani, your proposition is as false as it can be.
So, your universal statement about their protecting pedophiles is absurd on its face. They only protect their own pedophiles.

i am humbled.

You are correct. Thank you for keeping me honest.

Posted by: john.trevisani at October 9, 2006 11:55 AM
Comment #187135

Yeah, we protect our potential pedophiles by making them resign and launching investigations into who may have known about them, while the Democrats punish their actual pedophiles with a standing ovation and five more terms in congress. Hypocrites indeed!

Posted by: Duane-o at October 9, 2006 11:58 AM
Comment #187138
Studds was re-elected to five more terms after the censure. He fought for many issues, including environmental and maritime issues, gay marriage, AIDS funding, and civil rights, particularly for homosexuals.

From Wikipedia

Posted by: Duane-o at October 9, 2006 12:00 PM
Comment #187143
In 1983, two Congressman, Republican Dan Crane and Democrat Gerry Studds were both found guilty by the House Ethics Committee of engaging in sexual activity with 17-year-old congressional pages. Then-Congressman Newt Gingrich demanded their immediate expulsion but Democratic leaders instead led the vote for censure.

Dan Crane tearfully apologized for his actions, accepted his censure, and was promptly voted out of office.

Democrat Gerry Studds however stood by his relationship with a 17-year-old boy, refused to apologize, and even turned his back and ignored the official House censure being read to him. His Democratic colleagues gave him a standing ovation and even voted for him to chair a Congressional Committee. He served for 12 more years as Democrats in Massachusetts continued to elect this admitted pedophile

WHO protects pedophiles?????

Posted by: Duane-o at October 9, 2006 12:11 PM
Comment #187146

RepublicanDemocratic Party to America: We protect love our pedophiles!!

Posted by: Duane-o at October 9, 2006 12:14 PM
Comment #187150

When bad cops are protected by other cops, the community never trusts the badge again.

And when Congress protects it’s own the people the nation should never trust any of in Congress regardless of party.
I’m almost willing to bet that there were as many Democrats that knew of Foley’s actions as there were Republicans. The only reason this is coming out now is the elections. The Democrats are using this to try to get in control again. If they were in control we’d most likely would never of heard a peep.
Both sides are despicable on this.
Foley like ever other child molester needs to strung up by his gonads. Just because he’s a Congressman doesn’t put him above the law.

Posted by: Ron Brown at October 9, 2006 12:24 PM
Comment #187152

John - I do not know anyone, republican nor democrat, who would not say this guy had to go. If information showing Foley was involved in this sick behavior was buried by anyone, then off with their heads. The criminal investigation will sort this stuff out and then we will know. Even if no crime was committed, he still had to go because he was abusing and subverting the office he held.This is not a republican or democrat thing. Ask yourself what would have happened if Foley was a democrat and democrats were in power. I hope he would have been forced out as he was by republicans. This is a matter of doing what is right.

Posted by: Seminole 6 at October 9, 2006 12:29 PM
Comment #187157
Ask yourself what would have happened if Foley was a democrat and democrats were in power. I hope he would have been forced out as he was by republicans.

Seminole 6

I think when you look at their history which I describe above, I don’t think that would have been the case.

Posted by: Duane-o at October 9, 2006 12:47 PM
Comment #187158

Sorry for the mangling of the English language in my previous post!!

Posted by: Duane-o at October 9, 2006 12:48 PM
Comment #187166


If you’re going to go back to 1983 to defend Republican behavor, then take a look at this

Posted by: Steve K at October 9, 2006 12:59 PM
Comment #187168

It’s hard to say which is worse Trev, your hyperbole or the hysterical tone. And you really have your nerve bring up Ann Coulter. Maureen Dowd has never let a fact get in the way of her leftist hooey.

Posted by: joe18750 at October 9, 2006 1:04 PM
Comment #187169

The tenor of this thread is ugly and innaccurate from both sides.
First, the Republicans are guilty of behavior reflecting the attitude Republicans uber alles. It is now open and clear to everyone that this is the core of the values they espouse.
Foley is apparently guilty not of being a pedophile, but of sexual harrassment. The pages were post pubescent, and in the eyes of the DC laws, adults. His offenses are also abuse of power, and hypocracy, not to mention stupidity and arrogance, much of which is a syndrome common among politicians.

The historical cases which have been cited involved (apparently) consenting adults. Ugly, maybe, but legal, unless there was any coersion involved.

The fact of the matter is that the behavior of this now former congressman speaks to the Republican voters of the continued hypocracy that party condones in the language they speak.

Let them eat their own.

Posted by: dana at October 9, 2006 1:05 PM
Comment #187172

Oh good grief.

Posted by: Trent at October 9, 2006 1:06 PM
Comment #187174

—- posted this on the red thread, but thought it fit here this morning ——-

The people now in control have let the world get completely out of control.

Iraq is a failed state, Iran is a grave concern of going nuclear and N Korea is now nuclear. These same people bugger little boys, talk dirty online while writing legislation to prosecute those who do just that and are found with $90K in their freezers.


How about we look at the parties this way: You’re either in DC now or you are not. Those leading the country (living in DC) need to go home and make room for some others to try their hand at running the world. I’m not even bothered if these new people have plans or not… 1 - they don’t have the classified info to make actual plans & 2 - any option is better than failure.

Also, I could care less about the legal implications of those currently facing indictments. If you are stupid enough or arrogant enough to be facing such charges - then you need to go home and get your life in order. Feel free to run again if you are found not guilty. The last thing this country needs right now is to have it’s leaders distracted by legal proceedings… the last thing we need is to be lead by those with the appearance of being guilty.

As far as I can tell, neither party gives a crap about us, and they aren’t even willing to show us the simply respect of being honest with us. We can either send them home and take back control of the parties - or we can continue to fight their fights for them.

Posted by: tony at October 9, 2006 1:07 PM
Comment #187176

Hey Duane-o,

First; It was the REPUBLICAN led committee who wanted to reprimand them. The REPUBLICAN majority body overall voted for censure. Newt did want them expelled.
By the 1983 exposure of Studds relationship, the page was 27 and they had been together for ten years. A bit more than a fling. It wasn’t illegal then to have sex with someone 17, nor it is illegal now.
Foleys potential crime was soliciting sex with a minor over the internet. Ironically, actually having sex would be legal. Excrutiatingly funny is that the biggest problem he has is with the homophobic GOPers. Most people I know, smart people mostly, were more upset by the abuse of power than anything else. Oh, and the self destruction of the GOPers too, that’s funny. Especially given the glee you people had when the Dems recently did it.

Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at October 9, 2006 1:08 PM
Comment #187179

Steve K,

The article you linked just proved my point.

Bauman was arrested on October 3, 1980 for attempting to solicit sex from a 16-year old male prostitute and “oral sodomy” [1], contributing to his electoral defeat one month later. from wikipedia
Posted by: Duane-o at October 9, 2006 1:13 PM
Comment #187180


Check your facts. The Democrats were in the majority in 1983 with House speaker Tip O’Neill. Good job keeping the facts out of your rantings.

Posted by: Duane-o at October 9, 2006 1:20 PM
Comment #187181

i’m all for recycling the entire lot (the house, the senate, the white house) and wish that a third party would emerge from this crap to bring order and respect to our government.

The age of consent is 16 for D.C, the age of the pages. So technically for D.C. he’s not soliciting from a minor. However, since we’re splitting hairs here, if Foley, a 52 year old man, is in Florida and sends an email to a 16 year old, he’s in Florida where the technical age of consent is 18. Which, i would assume, is where the ‘crime’ was committed.

Right is right; wrong is wrong.

Parents complained to their representatives about Foley. Something should have been done about it at the time. Ask yourself this:
Do you feel that the current group of Republicans care more about your kids, than their own party?

Posted by: john trevisani at October 9, 2006 1:22 PM
Comment #187184

“Foleys potential crime was soliciting sex with a minor over the internet. Ironically, actually having sex would be legal.”

So why the post about Republicans protecting pedophiles?

Posted by: Duane-o at October 9, 2006 1:23 PM
Comment #187187

My apologies for calling the Studds situation ugly. I did not know the details.
It is in no way comparable to the Foley case.

It doesn’t really matter whether the objects of Foley’s unwanted attention were male or female. That his emails were directed to young men will hurt the republicans most in their own circles. The protection of his behavior merely because he was a Republican indicates which is the true “family” that “family values” supports.

Posted by: dana at October 9, 2006 1:32 PM
Comment #187188

It is agreed, however knew, should have spoke up. However, inapporpriate, I do not think this is pedophilia in the same way a grown person and with a 5 y/o. Most of these pages are almost 18, one or two years more and they are eligible to for the miliary and to fight for our freedome.

I see it more as a “very very closeted gay male” who liked younger males issues, and aren’t the Dem’s the party of “tolerance” and “pro gay rights”???

Harping and stretching the term “pedophilia” for political gain (when in fact the pages were older teens) is also “disingenuous”.


Posted by: gopRkewl at October 9, 2006 1:34 PM
Comment #187191

I really don’t think anyone is interested in protecting pedophiles. They are interested in protecting their majority in congress. This is how cynical Washington has become. Everything to protect the seats and committee chairmanships.

If Foley had been a Democrat (as Fox News repeatedly implied), then Hastert, Boehner, Reynolds, Shimkus or any of the Republicans would have been trumpeting this as loud as possible as early as possible. They (and for that matter, the Democrats as well) are only interested in survival.

This sickness possessed by both parties is almost as bad as Foley’s.

Posted by: Dennis at October 9, 2006 1:36 PM
Comment #187193

Duane-O’s comments lack a great deal of credibility.

Fact: both parties will act in accordance with whatever action will potentially hide their flaws.

The way Duane-O jumps from the fact that Republicans protected their seducer of teens to Democrats LOVE pedophiles and applaud them, simply lacks any common sense credence.

And yes, in case you missed it, Duane-O, Democrats have protected their own as well. That’s why we voters need to remove incumbents in huge numbers to change their mindset from, “political power at any cost”, to “serving the public’s and nation’s best interests at any cost”.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 9, 2006 1:39 PM
Comment #187195


The Republicans THREW FOLEY OUT ON HIS EAR! How is that protecting “their” pedophiles like YOU claimed above? Talk about lacking common sense credence.

Posted by: Duane-o at October 9, 2006 1:45 PM
Comment #187199


Keep reading. Bauman won the Republican nomination in the following election cycle. He was thrown out by the voters — not the Republican party.

Steve K

Posted by: Steve K at October 9, 2006 1:55 PM
Comment #187200


How is that protecting “their” pedophiles like YOU claimed above?

The Republicans didn’t throw Foley out on his ear, as you suggest. If you had been following any of the news reports, i’m sure you would have heard by now:
- Parents has contacted representatives as early as 2000 to complain about solicitation from Foley
- As early as 2003, so far reported, the House Page Board knew of solicitations from Foley and chose not to inform the Democrats on the same board and asked the RNC for guidance.
- Also in 2003, Hastert’s office was notified. It’s also been reported that the Speaker may have known in 2000 also.
- ABC news approached Foley about the solicitation and he resigned immediately following the reporting of the piece. The Republicans had nothin to do with putting pressure on him to resign; it was ABC news that put the pressure on him.

So to flatly state that the Republicans threw Foley out on his ear is absolutely incorrect.

Posted by: john trevisani at October 9, 2006 1:55 PM
Comment #187205

Duane-O, they protected for years after being aware of his activities. That is how Republicans protected him and now are paying the price for the cover up.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 9, 2006 2:08 PM
Comment #187206

Yes, the Republicans threw Foley out only after they could no longer hide what they knew for years.
Then, Dennis Hastert lied about his knowledge of it, despite Hastert himself saying “I listent to everything, and remeber everything”. So, we are to believe he can’t remember discussing Foley hitting on minors? Right.

Dennis Hastert, selfishly clinging to his cu$hy, coveted seat of power in Congress, has dealt the Republicans a devastating blow. Their defense is:

  • (1) What about Studds?

  • (2) These are dirty Democrat tricks.

  • (3) We have done nothing wrong.

  • (4) I take full responsibility (but do nohting of the kind; nothing but empty words)

  • (5) We have take steps and started an investigation (sure…we’ll probably get the results AFTER the election)

  • (6) Change the subject: Democrats are soft on terror.

That fact is, neither party has much room to talk.
Sadly, here’s what is going to happen:

  • Republican voters that are afraid Democrat incumbent politicians will win seats, will vote for Republican incumbents.

  • Democrat voters that are afraid Republican incumbent politicians will win seats, will vote for Democrat incumbents.

  • 90% of incumbents will be re-elected

  • 90% of the winners will be the candidate (usually an incumbent) that spends the most

  • 83% of all ($2.4 billion in 2004) campaign donations ($200 or more) will come from a mere 0.15% of all eligible voters (200 million).

  • Our pressing problems will get worse.

Posted by: d.a.n at October 9, 2006 2:09 PM
Comment #187207

Hey, folks,
Since when do any of you actually vote for a party? I’d thought that most of the writers here had enough sense to attempt to vote for the candidate, (assuming one can find one) not the Party!.

That is the the real problem in our country - no one can think for themselves - not the candidates, party leaders,or voters.

The candidates are like robots, controlled by their parties, the parties are controlled by a desire for greed, power, or money. And the voters have no way of determining who is a thinker and who is a follower.

Forgive me for deciding that all the differing media outlets recommended to me as “…the only ones telling the Truth,” merely confuse the issues. I don’t care who it is, CNN, FOX, ABC, CBS, NBC, or any of the off-shoots. I try to catch them all(Monthly), and then attempt to try to determine on my own. The same goes for print articles. Unfortunately most people either don’t have the time, albility, or interst ( a BIGGIE)to read or listen to every one.

Of course I believe it takes someone physiologically impaired to actually think they can BE president. That’s always scarry to me. Bush appeared originally to be a nice guy - who knew he had ambitions of dictatorship?

No one thinks for themselves! They vote the way someone else tells them too, be it commericals, party lines, or media.
That to me is the is the true shame of America.

Posted by: Linda H. at October 9, 2006 2:23 PM
Comment #187209

Linda H.,
Very true. We’re all culpable.

Posted by: d.a.n at October 9, 2006 2:32 PM
Comment #187210


Thanks for taking the bait. A DEMOCRATIC led congress voted to CENSURE their own DEMOCRATIC member by a vote of 420-3.
How does that compare to how the DeLay scandal was handled? Remember that the REPUBLICANS changed the ETHICS RULES to allow DeLay to STAY.
The rest of my initial post I believe to be accurate.

Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at October 9, 2006 2:36 PM
Comment #187211

This is certainly thought-provoking, but my only complaint with this, and many other liberal articles, is the use of Ann Coulter. She is an entertainer, perhaps even agent provocateur. I find it unfair to use her as some sort of barometer for the concensus within the Republican Party, or even reflecting mainstream Republican opinions.

Using Ann Coulter as a “straw man” is too easy for a variety of reasons.

Posted by: Jacob in SC at October 9, 2006 2:42 PM
Comment #187212


Censure? Ooooh, scary. Typical slap on the wrist. And on top of that, when the censure was being read Studds turned his back, prompting a STANDING OVATION and APPLAUSE by the DEMOCRATIC members of the House.

Posted by: Duane-o at October 9, 2006 2:43 PM
Comment #187215

Oh, and all of you who keep mentioning that Democrats gave Studds a standing ovation, perhaps you should have read a little bit lower in Wikipedia article where it says:

“Studds received standing ovations, not in Congress as has been reported, but in his home district at his first town meeting following his congressional censure.”

Posted by: Jacob in SC at October 9, 2006 2:48 PM
Comment #187219

The major difference between Studds and Foley is legality. Studds didn’t break any laws. Foley did. Studds broke rules, and was censured for it along with Crane. Foley broke laws (laws he wrote, I might add), and was allowed to do so by his party’s leaders.

Duane-O, Republicans get no points for “tossing him out on his ear” when it took them 6 years and media exposure to realize that was the right course of action. That’s like if Ken Lay decided after the trial that he should fire Fastow.

Posted by: David S at October 9, 2006 2:59 PM
Comment #187220

During the (sexual harrassment, perjury, oral sex) Clinton affair, there was not a coordinated attempt to hide/cover-up Clinton’s extramarital affair with Lewinski.

But, it appears, that the Republicans certainly did have a coordinated event with regards to the Foley affair. What Mr. Foley apparantly did was solicit sex from a minor through the Internet. The Republican leadership knew for years of his actions and decided to cover it up for fear that they would lose power in Washington.

i agree that this shouldn’t be a political issue. But it was the Republicans that MADE IT a political issue by playing power games and excluding the Democrats from this process, not the Democrats.

This is not about gay or straight, democrat vs. republican. This should be about protecting the children from predators. If the Democrats and Republicans can’t have bipartisan support against pedophilia/child predators then there’s absolutely no hope for a true democratic society.

Posted by: john trevisani at October 9, 2006 2:59 PM
Comment #187221

I don’t know how valuable my post is, but I’m a social and economic conservative. Politicians at every level of government are corrupt and dishonest at some level. Foley’s acts are disgusting for sure and I would never vote for him or Hastert after this. But if you all knew the twisted interworkings of nearly all politician’s evil nature, we wouldn’t elect any of them. I hate to be the one that says it doesn’t matter, but the fact is that it only matters if you find out about it. If a politician continues to vote in a way that you agree with, you keep electing him. That is the best we can do. I’m a little shocked that Bill Clinton has not been mentioned yet. Successful politicians are all slimey. Nobody should trust thier character or think that “thier” party is somehow superior. The party is the platform, not the people.

Posted by: jacktruth at October 9, 2006 2:59 PM
Comment #187224

Linda -

True enough… but it’s a systemic problem. When was the last time you read something about a candidate or even saw a yard sign without quickly looking for a political affiliation? I hate it, but I do it as well.

I’m also tired of the way the political parties have gone from running campaigns to running the government. It’s all about voting with the party, supporting the party - all the votes seem to be along party lines.

As voters, we look at party affiliation before jumping to conclusions - but then immediately jump to conclusions once we’ve assessed the affiliation.

The end result is that the voters have taken a back seat to the parties… they decide what issues are important and debated in public, they even release talking points to make sure us voters know what to say.

Enough is enough. Not sure how to throw the parties out of DC, but I think we can scare the hell out of them this November.

Posted by: tony at October 9, 2006 3:04 PM
Comment #187235

Ebophile, not pedophile. Sorry to quibble. Pedophile is someone sexually interested in prepubescent children. Ebophile refers to those sexually interested in post-pubescent teenagers.

Also, I’m a true blue liberal, but the phoney outrage here is apalling to me. Some of the Dems are starting to sound like the repugs in terms of puritanical moral tone. Bill Maher got it right. A lot of today’s teens are highly sexually aware, due to the culture, internet, etc. Nothing wrong with that, but the guys IMing with Foley were up on their game and obviously comfortable being open about sex— which is a good thing, don’t you think? Being gay myself, it’s also a good opportunity for the masses to see how relaxed gay men are about sex— another good thing that would benefit us all. This entire charade is about appealing to stupid small minded voters, a highly evolved repug art form if recent history is any indication. And I hope it works and sweeps the Dems into power in at least one of the Houses.

Posted by: CP at October 9, 2006 3:31 PM
Comment #187238

CP Thank you for in just a few words explaining how your Democrat party really feels about this issue you have balls of steel.

Posted by: PETRO at October 9, 2006 3:37 PM
Comment #187241

Ohh,, Please if this happened to a Democrat. The Republican evangelical, right-wingers would be up in arms. So, it happened to a Republican, and people are trying to make it seem that it is ok to let him go and the GOP to get away with a slap on the wrist. (Remember Rush Limbaugh and drugs) So all the country should try to forget about it and think about homeland security like it has done in every other election in the past 5 years. The reason that everyone is up in arms, because it is a Republican this time and you cannot spin the elections to family values, like in the past presidential and congressional elections. Hmm…..I wonder what Bill O’Reilly (the No Spin Zone Guru)would say now. Or, for that matter, I probably missed what Bill Maher said last Friday.

J Lopez

Posted by: J Lopez at October 9, 2006 3:38 PM
Comment #187244

Parents complained to their representatives about Foley. Something should have been done about it at the time. Ask yourself this:
Do you feel that the current group of Republicans care more about your kids, than their own party?

Posted by: john trevisani at October 9, 2006 01:22 PM ____________________________________________

John -
I trust that neither side cares more about any child than they care about their political future. What we have is political opportunism and posturing from all concerned. If the Republican leadership was aware, the Democrats were aware. Rather than take action when this initially surfaced it was held for the proper moment, with Republicans getting the short straw this time.

Posted by: Seminole 6 at October 9, 2006 3:49 PM
Comment #187245


Your argument has the same intellectual content as one hears on the Kindergarden playground. Do you have a clue what censure is? Could you even reply to the content instead of using rhetorical talking point irrelevencies from your blind hatred of the not-Duane? Read the whole article next time. Try using whatever brain you might have for a change.

Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at October 9, 2006 3:59 PM
Comment #187247

Sorry but Mark Foley is not a pedophile. A pedophile is sexually aroused by pre-pubescent children, that is kids who have not even reached the age of puberty.

Mr. Foley has a penchant for underage fully developed minors, all of whom were old enough to be legally married in the states they reside in. While it may be immoral, it is hardly disgusting. 40 year old men marry 16 year old teens girls in Utah every day. Is it OK to marry them and have sex with them but not OK to talk dirty to them? That makes no sense.

The real criminals are the Republican leaders who kept it secret. In most scandals, those who commit the original act are rarely punished or charged. The people who try to cover it up are the ones who get caught, tried and punished.

Posted by: Elaygee at October 9, 2006 4:06 PM
Comment #187248

Duane-o has an opinion and he’s entitled to voice it. And there have been many, including myself, posting the many, many inaccuracies to Duane-o’s post.

But Watchblog prefers the discrepancies to dealt with centered around the topic and not the person posting. Hence the tagline: Criticize the message, not the messenger.

Please refrain from direct jabs at Duane-o; instead pick apart, piece by piece, the key facts proving Duane-o’s argument is factually incorrect.

Posted by: john trevisani at October 9, 2006 4:08 PM
Comment #187251

“Mr. Foley has a penchant for underage fully developed minors, all of whom were old enough to be legally married in the states they reside in. While it may be immoral, it is hardly disgusting. 40 year old men marry 16 year old teens girls in Utah every day. Is it OK to marry them and have sex with them but not OK to talk dirty to them? That makes no sense.”

Well… it was illegal based on the laws that Foley himself wrote. That’s irony that’s too rich for words. It’s also in a place of business, with minors (who I’m pretty sure have not given their permission for Foley to in engage in sexual activities with their children) who were under the supervision of these Congressmen. Keep in mind that one of the pages involved called Foley’s email “sick sick sick sick sick…” and the pages all knew to stay away from Foley. If it makes you feel better, we could bring him up on sexual harassment charges.

I also find it so amazing that it’s ALWAYS the cover up, not the original “sin” that gets people in DC. I know it can feel dangerous to admit to your shortcomings… but it can’t be worse than being proven guilty and facing much worse legal problems by trying to cover it all up.

Posted by: tony at October 9, 2006 4:21 PM
Comment #187256

Dit dit dah dit dah dit



Ahhh, perspective.

Posted by: NobleNation at October 9, 2006 4:31 PM
Comment #187258

Again, just so that things are truthfully presented, I quote Wikipedia:

“In 1990, the House voted to reprimand Frank when it was revealed that Steve Gobie, a male prostitute that Rep. Frank had befriended after hiring him through a personal advertisement, claimed to have conducted a prostitution ring from Frank’s apartment when he was not at home. Frank had dismissed Gobie earlier that year, and reported the incident to the House Ethics Committee, after learning of Gobie’s activities. After an investigation, the House Ethics Committee found no evidence that Frank had known of or been involved in the alleged illegal activity.”

Posted by: Jacob in SC at October 9, 2006 4:36 PM
Comment #187259

Oh, and BTW,

Were the “male prostitutes” minors?

Posted by: Rocky at October 9, 2006 4:38 PM
Comment #187261

Do you have their numbers?!?!?

(sorry, bad joke…)

Posted by: tony at October 9, 2006 4:42 PM
Comment #187263

Hold on here. Those of you trying to make legal arguments for Foley are way off track.
Fact #1- Foley sent sexually explicit emails to boy’s under the age of 18.

Fact #2- It doesn’t matter where Foley sent the email from, DC or Florida. The fact that the boy’s were all in states where the legal age of consent is 18 means Foley committed a crime.

Fact#3- Some republican leaders were aware of the emails as early as 2000.

Fact #4- Hassert’s office was notified at least as early as 2003.

Fact #4- No Democrate on the ethics committe or anyother committe was notified by Hassert or any other republican as to the details of Mr. Foley. (I say this because if any republican had told a member of one of the committes then we would know about it by now).

Fact #5- Foley resigned on his own without pressure from the republicans. (the Tom Delay incident let’s us all know that they wouldn’t have asked him to resign at this time. Wait until after the elections and then we will see where we are).

These are the facts that we know about. Anything else is pure conjecture at this point. Though I really want to see the democrats take back power in the house and sentate, I have a hard time bringing myself to believe that Hassert would protect Foley. I will give Hassert the benefit of the doubt at this time.

Posted by: Rusty at October 9, 2006 4:59 PM
Comment #187264

The demecratic party should have no problem with the Foley affair after all its just about sex. Ofcourse thats what the dems were saying when bubba was doing monica. So why the double standard?? Will someone please explain why when a dem does sex (no problem) when Rep does sex the whole party should be admonished. Bubba covered up for 9 months and all the dems forgave him. When a Republican screws up he admits and resigns, not in the party of the morale ones.

Posted by: Thomas at October 9, 2006 5:03 PM
Comment #187265


If you need to ask the question you won’t understand the answer either.

Posted by: Rocky at October 9, 2006 5:05 PM
Comment #187270

Sorry john. It’s why I’m not a teacher, but I can learn.

Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at October 9, 2006 5:28 PM
Comment #187277


Bubba was with a woman, who was over 18. Foley was trying to get it on with boys. Bubba is a dem. Foley is a Republican, the party of Family Values and the Christian conservatives.
Bubba had an excuse, he’s a Democrat. It is expected. It is in our nature. Republicans by all means are above all this….Yeah right…LOL

J Lopez

Posted by: J Lopez at October 9, 2006 5:56 PM
Comment #187281


All your criticism seems aimed at the Republican party and none of it at Congressman Foley. If what Foley did is so terribly wrong (and it was) lets make a big deal out of his behavior. Why try to deflect the issue towards Hastert and the Republican Party? Could it just be that you don’t want to have to address the issue of Foleys behavior? Maybe a bit nervous of losing some big campaign contributions from your friends in Hollywood who still can’t figure out what Foley did wrong except for being a Republican?

Posted by: Carnak at October 9, 2006 6:02 PM
Comment #187285


“Why try to deflect the issue towards Hastert and the Republican Party?”

This is too simple.

If Hassert and the Republican party knew of this behaviour, and looked the other way, they are as guilty as Foley.

Posted by: Rocky at October 9, 2006 6:18 PM
Comment #187287

It is the leaders of the Republican party that chose to cover up the abhorrent conduct of one of their own.

It is the republican party operatives that left the Democrats out of the process when they were alerted of the situation.

It is the republican party that has attemtped to ‘handle’ the situation through misinformation tactics (like Fox, Alcoholism stories, etc…) rather than respect the kids and their families to do what was right.

Had the Republicans in 2000 (this is the earliest date known so far) dealt with the problem by censuring Foley or held him accountable in some other fashion. there wouldn’t have been as much a problem.

Had the Republicans chose the ‘right’ and ‘moral’ path, they would now have the opportunity to trumpet a success of removing a predator.

But they chose to cover and smear.

Posted by: john trevisani at October 9, 2006 6:22 PM
Comment #187296

I read the link to the page from Ann the Man, well maybe he/she is in drag, as I never see her with anyone other the those from Fox the mouth of the republican party. I agree shame on her for trying to turn it around and say it is all democrat’s fault that Foley is a pedophile and a republican. I wonder what she would say if he was reelected by those in Fl? Hey a dead man beat Ascroft for office, so I guess it is better to have a dead democrat then a live republican.

Foley should be arrested and charged, and if he can not be found do it anyway.

Posted by: KT at October 9, 2006 6:49 PM
Comment #187300


So what im hearing you say is that if Foleys page was 21 all would be cool is that right. I know that you arent concerned because Foley is gay. Double standard my friend. Like I have said so many times before Truth to you libs is like light to a vampire.

Posted by: Thomas at October 9, 2006 7:10 PM
Comment #187303

We got Franks, Studds and Foley engaging in nefarious sexual activites. There are differences. Franks had an illegal sex for sale ring operating from his home, but he claims he didn’t know about it. Studds didn’t write emails. He actually got underage pages drunk and had sex with them. Foley send nasty emails, but evidently never pulled a Studds.

I think we can be outraged about Foley and he should lose his job. But those who were not outraged by Studds or Franks have shown that their current outrage is nothing but an act.

It kind of reminds me of a joke (Franks and Studds would understand). This guy asks a woman if she would sleep with him for a million dollars. She say, “I guess I would.” He says, “How about $10.” She is outraged and says, “what do you think I am?” He responds, “we know what you are. We are just negotiating price.”

Posted by: Jack at October 9, 2006 7:29 PM
Comment #187304


Censure was so bad for Studds he only got re-elected 5 times.

Posted by: Keith at October 9, 2006 7:30 PM
Comment #187305

Thomas -

Are you trying to find ways to justify Foley or ways to attack DEMs? Also, Foley is not gay, he is an ebophile… there’s a difference. (The whole man vs boy thing.) It’s also the cover up - IT’S ALWAYS ABOUT THE COVER UP.

Truth to “you cons” is like wheels to a fish.

Posted by: tony at October 9, 2006 7:30 PM
Comment #187307


No the double standard here is the rights’s attempt to spin this as if it was nothing, or better yet, it was the Democrat’s fault that Foley was caught soliciting minors.

It doesn’t matter a whit if Foley is a gay congressman. It doesn’t matter if some Democrat 20 years ago did the same thing. It doesn’t matter if Clinton did naughty things with an adult intern.

Wrong is wrong. There is no comparison, there is no way this can be justified.

The breadth of ignorance the right is exibiting on this issue is breathtaking.

Posted by: Rocky at October 9, 2006 7:38 PM
Comment #187310

I think Foley did the right thing by resigning. I dont care if he is rep or dem or ind. he was wrong. My point is simply that when a rep does wrong he resigns in shame. Foley’s life is all but over. It seems to me that when a dem does wrong they circle the wagons. Wrong is wrong I dont care what party it is doing the wrong. All I say is lets be fair and balanced.

Posted by: Thomas at October 9, 2006 7:53 PM
Comment #187313

You watch too much Fox News.

Posted by: Rocky at October 9, 2006 8:00 PM
Comment #187314

“they circle the wagons.”

…like Hastert and the others who protected Foley?

Posted by: tony at October 9, 2006 8:04 PM
Comment #187326

There may be some who think that friendly warnings over the years to Foley were sufficient HOWEVER,When the house leadership, Republicans, refused to report these situations to the ENTIRE Page committee there can be only be one rational, unmistakable, and true conclusion: The Republican leadership chose to cover-up these seductions for the sake of the face of the Party. By not immediately notifying all memeber so the page committee they clearly showed their tru intnetions: Consipire, obstuct, and cover-up. Omission is just as great a sin, if not more so, than comission. When a political party practices ommission and fails to take action when it is unquestionaly moral and ethical required to do so their silence is in FACT not only the acceptance and enablement of the the validity of the action but also condoning it as well.

In the end there is only one truth about this sordid situation: The FIRST PRIORITY OC rEPUBLICAN cONSEVATISM is always to be loyal to and save the face of the Party even to ignoring the attempted sexual seduction of minor children by members of their party and its leadership. The Republicans who control the House of Reps. have the toal responsibility for the safety and welfare of the pages and thjey deliberately chose to sacrifice those child pages on the alter of their own political ambitions. By not dealing immediately with Foley at first aawareness the Republican s have designated tahemselves as the Offical pimps for thier membership to the page’s. There can be no longer be any doubt that integrity, morality, ethics, honesty, and family values are not a part of the Conservative Republican philosopiocal basis as it has been replaced by dishonest , disingenuouis, duplicitous, deliberate and premeditated obstruction of the truth.

Those are the FACTS of the Foley incident and everyone who has the intelligence of a cretin or above knows it is so AND SO DO THE REPUBLICANS even as they try to lie, the most favored tactic for a long time, their way out of it.

The time has come for the House to censure and remove from any position of leadership any member, of any party who know about these incidents and did not immediately report them to the full Page committee at the time. To do any less is to endorse, condone and support Foley’s actions as approriate.

Posted by: Richard at October 9, 2006 9:35 PM
Comment #187331

The Democratic party accepts pedophiles. Gerry Studds turned his back on Congress as his censure was read. He was reelected 5 more times. And he actually had sex with a 17 year old male page. Foley has yet to be accused of such a thing. Studds received standing ovations when he returned. Foley is now widely despised by conservatives. A few stupid republican leaders protected one pedophile. Many point out Studds never did anything illegal. Foley has not yet been charged for anything yet, either.
Nancy Pelosi walked in the San Francisco Gay Pride Parade next to the President of the American Man-Boy Love Association. She never said a word about him or his opinions.
Sorry but the Democratic Party does not have much leverage in crying foul about what Foley did. I DO NOT IN ANY WAY EXCUSE FOLEY. I merely point out that dems do not have a whole lot of moral authority in the matter. If anything Foley should be held more accountable since he belongs to the morals and values crowd. O wait-he has. He resigned. He would not be reelected if he hadn’t. Studds was, 5 times. Pelosi will be. She might succeed the much-critized Dennis Hastert. She acknowledged the President of the American Man-Boy Love Association. Wonderful.
By the way I think Hastert, the Republican on the Page committee and anyone else who knew what was going on should resign and probably go to jail to. Foley should to. But probably none of them will, since they didn’t do anything illegal. (that we know of)

Posted by: Silima at October 9, 2006 10:23 PM
Comment #187340

Yes, this whole argument by the Democrats is disingenuous at best.

Posted by: Charles Adams at October 10, 2006 12:03 AM
Comment #187343


If you continue to repeat that mantra over and over, soon you may actually begin to believe it.

I am not a member of the Democratic Party, and I think that both sides of this equation suck.

Foley and the Republicans that hid the truth are merely a symptom of the disease.

Posted by: Rocky at October 10, 2006 12:35 AM
Comment #187364

Any diversionary tactics use to swing the discussion away from the topic of the Republican leadership hiding from the public that the PARENTS of the pages complained about Foley’s predatory behavior is disingenuous.

Either you respect the parents of the pages or you don’t.

Posted by: john trevisani at October 10, 2006 7:48 AM
Comment #187371

Im suprised no one mentioned Gov. Arnold Swhartaneggar’s perverted past. Fox news supported the steiroid crazed, pot smoking, admiter of many sexual assaults. Fox chose not to persue any of these issue’s. But they couldn’t forgive Bill Clinton’s indescetions. Talk about hypocracy.

Posted by: George W. Rove at October 10, 2006 9:59 AM
Comment #187387

Some interesting rumors flying around the web regarding gay Republican staffers — and Dennis Hastert?

Also see this:
video of gay activist and blogger Mike Rogers on O’Reilly.


Rogers told O’Reilly that he will be releasing more names of closeted members of the Senate and House before election day. O’Reilly advised Rogers to “get [them] on the issues,” to which Rogers replied, “I am… and their hypocrisy.”

Posted by: Adrienne at October 10, 2006 11:17 AM
Comment #187388
Dave1-20-09: Censure was so bad for Studds he only got re-elected 5 times. Posted by: Keith at October 9, 2006 07:30 PM
So, what’s your point? Studds was an excellent legislator who made a mistake of falling in love in a way that many in society felt was inappropriate. His constituency clearly felt that this was a forgivable infraction, especially given that (a) the relationship had lasted over ten years at the time of its exposure which (b) clearly showed it was a bit more than an IM jerk fest.


I for one don’t care what Arnold did as an adult with consenting adults who were not under his undue influence. It’s none of our business.

Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at October 10, 2006 11:18 AM
Comment #187401

This can be summed up quite clearly. Parties care about parties. Niether support pedophiles (Not by definition of law) but they both care about their party and the American people take a distant second. They both have scum bags, corruption and useless human beings. Both parties suck and government reform is our only hope.

I tend to get a little hot one one attempts to portray the other as immoral. Hypocrites!

Posted by: Curmudgeon-at-large at October 10, 2006 12:24 PM
Comment #187501


It does not matter if Foley is Gay or Straight, he was trying to get it on with individuals under 21, hence boys. I was pointing out the hypocrisy of the ultra-conservative, christian coalition party that you belong to. And, yes I believe that they are controlled by biggots, since they really want to impress to everyone that if you are gay, they do not want you in their party. It just happens to be ironic that Foley is gay.

Couple of things you might want to realize, he wanted to bed young, impressionable children, not adults. This is against the law, at least him sending sexually explicit e-mails, violated the Federal Sexual Harrassment Law(S.) And Yes, there is a cover up, circling of the wagons, by the Republican leadership in Congress.

Posted by: J Lopez at October 10, 2006 6:22 PM
Comment #187569

Barney Franks. Nothing like good old democrats getting up and applauding a man that had a male prostitution ring being run out of his apartment. There’s your democratic party leadership on this issue.

By the way….I hear that Foley didn’t actually committ any crime or have sex with a minor. Is that true? Do you think maybe this will be as good as the Wilson-Plame lies that took months to debunk….where we ultimately learned that wilsons attack on the Whitehouse was dishonest, based on lies. And that Bush, Cheney, and Rove did not Out Plame but it was someone out of governemnt, and that ultimately it was Wilsons on dishonest attack on the Whitehouse that led to his wife being outted…plame who was not an under cover agent so no law was broken anyway. YAWN.

Do you think that the democratic party could pass a plank that denounces what the politicaly correct gay left calls “man-boy love”? I think it would split the dems right down the middle if they actually denounced Man-Boy it in an offical party plank! Half of their gay california support would dump the party!

And you want to pretend the Republicans are the party that promotes man boy love? I don’t think the public is buying that.

Posted by: Stephen at October 11, 2006 3:54 AM
Comment #187603
applauding a man that had a male prostitution ring being run out of his apartment.
Ah, the lying slimeboat talking point again shows its ugly head. Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at October 11, 2006 10:18 AM
Comment #187613

“Nancy Pelosi walked in the San Francisco Gay Pride Parade next to the President of the American Man-Boy Love Association.”

No, she marched in the SF Gay Pride Parade with Harry Hay, who was never the president, but who some people have claimed had ties to NAMBLA. I don’t know if he did or not, but I do know he wasn’t there representing that organization. NAMBLA is not, and has never been allowed to have a float or an official representative in the SF Gay Pride Parade, ever. Hay was there because he was one of the original founders within gay activism.

These lies and false rumors were started by an article that appeared in the American Spectator, and has been spit out regularly by the GOP ever since. Similarly, they’ve made the same Democrat/NAMBLA connection about Hillary Clinton’s appearance at a gay pride march in NY — while omitting the fact that Rudy Guilani was present for that march too.

I’m tired of these lies. I live near SF, and while I am not gay, I have quite a few friends who march in the Gay Pride Parade, and I’ve attended more than once over the years — so let me repeat: NAMBLA has no representation at the SF Gay Pride Parade. NONE.

Posted by: Adrienne at October 11, 2006 11:30 AM
Comment #194980

Hello all. Can you please help me?

Posted by: Steve Hydrocodone at November 14, 2006 10:55 AM
Comment #194981

I really need your help guys.

Posted by: Steve Hydrocodone at November 14, 2006 10:57 AM
Post a comment