OK, Now I Understand How Republicans Were Supposed To Handle Foley

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by AAAintheBeltway, Oct 9, 2006.

  1. I have been slightly confused about the Foley scandal. What were Republicans leaders supposed to do and when should they have done it? Democrats are all over the media with claims that of course Speaker Hastert should have forced Foley to resign or something equally harsh the minute he learned of Foley's emails to pages. This has always seemed a bit convenient to me, something along the lines of "how could you allow a gay man to be near boys?" From the party of Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank and Gerry Studds, this seemed a bit much. Thankfully, Ann Coulter has put it into perspective for me.

    **************************************

    WHO KNEW CONGRESSMAN FOLEY WAS A CLOSETED DEMOCRAT?
    October 4, 2006


    At least liberals are finally exhibiting a moral compass about something. I am sure that they'd be equally outraged if Rep. Mark Foley were a Democrat.

    The object lesson of Foley's inappropriate e-mails to male pages is that when a Republican congressman is caught in a sex scandal, he immediately resigns and crawls off into a hole in abject embarrassment. Democrats get snippy.

    Foley didn't claim he was the victim of a "witch-hunt." He didn't whine that he was a put-upon "gay American." He didn't stay in Congress and haughtily rebuke his critics. He didn't run for re-election. He certainly didn't claim he was "saving the Constitution." (Although his recent discovery that he has a drinking problem has a certain Democratic ring to it.)

    In 1983, Democratic congressman Gerry Studds was found to have sexually propositioned House pages and actually buggered a 17-year-old male page whom he took on a trip to Portugal. The 46-year-old Studds indignantly attacked those who criticized him for what he called a "mutually voluntary, private relationship between adults."

    When the House censured Studds for his sex romp with a male page, Studds — not one to be shy about presenting his backside to a large group of men — defiantly turned his back on the House during the vote. He ran for re-election and was happily returned to office five more times by liberal Democratic voters in his Martha's Vineyard district. (They really liked his campaign slogan: "It's the outfit, stupid.")

    Washington Post columnist Colman McCarthy referred to Studds' affair with a teenage page as "a brief consenting homosexual relationship" and denounced Studds' detractors for engaging in a "witch-hunt" against gays: "New England witch trials belong to the past, or so it is thought. This summer on Cape Cod, the reputation of Rep. Gerry Studds was burned at the stake by a large number of his constituents determined to torch the congressman for his private life."

    Meanwhile, Foley is hiding in a hole someplace.

    No one demanded to know why the Democratic speaker of the House, Thomas "Tip" O'Neill, took one full decade to figure out that Studds was propositioning male pages.

    But now, the same Democrats who are incensed that Bush's National Security Agency was listening in on al-Qaida phone calls are incensed that Republicans were not reading a gay congressman's instant messages.

    Let's run this past the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals: The suspect sent an inappropriately friendly e-mail to a teenager — oh also, we think he's gay. Can we spy on his instant messages? On a scale of 1 to 10, what are the odds that any court in the nation would have said: YOU BET! Put a tail on that guy — and a credit check, too!

    When Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee found unprotected e-mails from the Democrats about their plan to oppose Miguel Estrada's judicial nomination because he was Hispanic, Democrats erupted in rage that their e-mails were being read. The Republican staffer responsible was forced to resign.

    But Democrats are on their high horses because Republicans in the House did not immediately wiretap Foley's phones when they found out he was engaging in e-mail chitchat with a former page about what the kid wanted for his birthday.

    The Democrats say the Republicans should have done all the things Democrats won't let us do to al-Qaida — solely because Foley was rumored to be gay. Maybe we could get Democrats to support the NSA wiretapping program if we tell them the terrorists are gay.

    On Fox News' "Hannity and Colmes" Monday night, Democrat Bob Beckel said a gay man should be kept away from male pages the same way Willie Sutton should have been kept away from banks. "If Willie Sutton is around some place where a bank is robbed," Beckel said, "then you're probably going to say, 'Willie, stay away from the robbery.'"

    Hmmmm, let's search the memory bank. In July 2000, the New York Times "ethicist" Randy Cohen advised a reader that pulling her son out of the Cub Scouts because they exclude gay scoutmasters was "the ethical thing to do." The "ethicist" explained: "Just as one is honor bound to quit an organization that excludes African-Americans, so you should withdraw from scouting as long as it rejects homosexuals."

    We need to get a rulebook from the Democrats:

    — Boy Scouts: As gay as you want to be.

    — Priests: No gays!

    — Democratic politicians: Proud gay Americans.

    — Republican politicians: Presumed guilty.

    — White House press corps: No gays, unless they hate Bush.

    — Active-duty U.S. military: As gay as possible.

    — Men who date Liza Minelli: Do I have to draw you a picture, Miss Thing?

    This is the very definition of political opportunism. If Republicans had decided to spy on Foley for sending overly friendly e-mails to pages, Democrats would have been screaming about a Republican witch-hunt against gays. But if they don't, they're enabling a sexual predator.

    Talk to us Monday. Either we'll be furious that Republicans violated the man's civil rights, or we'll be furious that they didn't.
     
  2. They think this is clever - defending a pedophile while at the same time doing some gay-bashing.

    Do you think that most people would be so ignorant that they don't know the difference between a gay and a pedophile?

    Wait, they are...
     
  3. 16 is age of consent in D.C. Convenient for the pervs, but legal none the less.
     
  4. Was the child in D.C. when he was reading the emails?

    Under what jurisdiction matters? Where Foley was sending the mail or IM, or where the child was receiving and reading them?

     
  5. pattersb

    pattersb Guest

    God, Ya GOTTA LOVE Pat Buchanan!

    http://buchanan.org/blog/?p=122


    The 94 Republicans signed a contract with America, the 06 Democrats are eating one of their own ...




    ........

    Two decades ago, Gerry Studds of Massachusetts attempted the seduction of several pages, and had an affair with one and took him off on a European tryst. Though censured, Studds was re-elected five times and given a chairmanship by the Democratic Party of Nancy Pelosi — which now professes itself sickened at how Denny Hastert and Co. tried to protect the homosexual in their midst, who, while committing sins of desire, has, as far as we know, committed no lewd or indecent act.

    Would this be the same Democratic Party that supports giving condoms to junior-high students and booed the Boy Scout honor guard at its Los Angeles Convention in 2000, because the Scouts refuse to permit homosexuals to be scoutmasters and take kids camping?

    Hillary Clinton has marched in the annual New York Gay Pride Parade. For years, that parade had a float carrying members of NAMBLA, the North American Man-Boy Love Association, whose monomania is the elimination of the age of consent for sex between men and boys.

    Alfred Kinsey in "Sexual Behavior and the American Male" reported on experiments he himself oversaw to prove the psychic benefits of sex between men, boys, tots and even infants. And this sicko had a Hollywood movie, "Kinsey," starring Liam Neeson, celebrate his genius.

    ........
     
  6. That I don't know. Internet law is still vague. Since there was no physical contact I doubt they can charge him with a crime. That said, this may bring some new law expanding the current laws regarding pedophiles. That would be a good thing IMO. Right now it looks like he was using the Pages as a farm system for later physical contact.
     
  7. pattersb

    pattersb Guest


    yeah, that's what he is doing. Defending a pedophile ...

    :p

    It sounds to me like he is laughing at democrats, the pedophile has already been sent to the scrapheap of history ...
     
  8. Generally the rule of thumb is the law is applicable to where the internet activity originates. i.e. gambling is legal in Costa Rica or Vegas but I can't legally phone a bet to there from D.C.

    I believe the age of consent most anywhere is 16 at a maximum.
     
  9. What part of "republican cover-up" does not Coulter understand?

    What part of "the party of Bob Livingston, Newt Gingrich and Mark Foley is not the party of moral values" don't republicans understand? And no the dems are not the party of moral values either... but unlike republicans they've never claimed to be.
     
  10. How many of those who signed the contract kept their words? If it were a real "contract," I'm sure the other side would be demanding refunds by now.

    And in what regard is Foley a Democrat? So do you think the Fox depiction of "Foley (D-FL)" was accurate?
     
    #10     Oct 9, 2006