Congressman Foley resigns

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Glenn sums up the GOP quite nicely I think.
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/

Mark Foley and the unmasked Republican Party

Denny Hastert is smack in the middle of one of the tawdriest and ugliest sex scandals in American political history. As a result, he has been the target of aggressive criticism, even from a few members of his own party, and, by all accounts, is desperately battling to keep his job.

In need of moral absolution and support from a respected and admired figure who possesses moral authority among Hastert's morally upstanding Republican base, to whom does Hastert turn? A priest or respected reverend? An older wise political statesman with a reputation for integrity and dignity? No, there is only one person with sufficient moral credibility among the increasingly uncomfortable moralistic Republican base who can give Hastert the blessing he needs:

Rush Limbaugh. And so that is where Hastert went yesterday in order to obtain the Decree that He Did Nothing Wrong.
As much as I tried -- and, trust me, I really tried -- I couldn't expunge this picture from my mind yesterday because, in all its visceral hideousness, it really illustrates what I think is the principal reason why this Foley scandal is resonating so strongly. This is the real face of the ruling Republican party, and it has been unmasked -- violently -- by the exposure of Mark Foley and his allies who protected and harbored him.

If the term "moral degenerate" has any validity and can be fairly applied to anyone, there are few people who merit that term more than Rush Limbaugh. He is the living and breathing embodiment of moral degeneracy, with his countless overlapping sexual affairs, his series of shattered, dissolved marriages, his hedonistic and illegal drug abuse, his jaunts, with fistfulls of Viagra (but no wife), to an impoverished Latin American island renowned for its easy access to underage female prostitutes.

Yet that is who Hastert chose as the High Priest of the Values Voters to whom he made his pilgrimage and from whom he received his benediction. The difference between Rush Limbaugh and Mark Foley, to the extent there is one, is one of hedonistic tastes, not moral level. Rush Limbaugh isn't just tolerated within the party that stands for religious piety and moral strength. He is a leader of it, arguably the leader of its most righteous wing. Is it really all that surprising that a political movement that has chosen a moral degenerate like Rush Limbaugh as one of its most revered and morally respected leaders is not all that bothered by -- and therefore actively harbors -- the Mark Foleys of the world?

The individuals who never tire of making public displays of how concerned they are with our moral fabric -- the Kathryn Jean Lopezs of the world who find Bill Clinton's sex life such a cause for condemnation and who publicly crusade to have John Kerry shunned by good Catholics because of how immoral he is and interrupt such crusades only in order to coo with giddy love and profound respect for Rush Limbaugh -- are well aware that their party is filled to the rim with sleazy, corrupt hedonists with as bloated and piggish a sense of entitlement as can be imagined. But as long as they help keep the party in power, they are not just tolerated but embraced. That dynamic is a core operating principle of the Bush-led Republican Party, and it is why Mark Foley was able to rise within it despite its being an "open secret" in Washington GOP power circles -- a very open secret -- exactly what he was.
...
We have been barraged with laws, programs, sermons, demagoguery and all sorts of moral demonization from a political movement whose most powerful pundit is a multiple-times-divorced drug addict who flamboyantly cavorts around with a new girlfriend every few months in between Viagra-fueled jaunts to the Dominican Republic. It is a political movement whose legacy will be torture, waterboards, naked, sadomasochistic games in Iraqi dungeons (or, to Rush, "blowing off steam"), with all sorts of varied sleaze and corruption deeply engrained throughout its DNA -- all propped up by a facade of moralism and dependent upon the support of those who have been propagandized into believing that they voting for the Party of Values and Morals.

It is not a coincidence that the GOP was harboring someone like Mark Foley within its highest ranks while their most powerful political officials purposely looked the other way and even actively helped to conceal what he was up to, thereby enabling him to continue. After all, even now that this conduct has been exposed, their instinct -- all the way to the highest levels -- is to excuse and defend those leaders and offer up the most disgusting defenses -- all because preservation of their political power depends on it. This is not some bizarre aberration. This is how they operate and it is what they are. And the Mark Foley scandal is making it virutally impossible for anyone to convincingly deny it any longer.
 
Scarletwine said:
Glenn sums up the GOP quite nicely I think.
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/

If the term "moral degenerate" has any validity and can be fairly applied to anyone, there are few people who merit that term more than Rush Limbaugh. He is the living and breathing embodiment of moral degeneracy, with his countless overlapping sexual affairs, his series of shattered, dissolved marriages, his hedonistic and illegal drug abuse, his jaunts, with fistfulls of Viagra (but no wife), to an impoverished Latin American island renowned for its easy access to underage female prostitutes.

BS. Of all the moral degenerates in this world, he says that there are few who merit the term more than Rush Limbaugh? BS. Pure BS.
 
80sU2isBest said:


BS. Of all the moral degenerates in this world, he says that there are few who merit the term more than Rush Limbaugh? BS. Pure BS.



but there are few morally dengenerate hypocrites who get paid more than Rush Limbaugh.
 
AEON said:


Thanks for this thoughtful answer Irvine. I am pretty much on the same page with you.

Of course - the the next place this discussion would probably go is here: if morality is determined by parents, community, local laws, books, and an innate sense of right and wrong - then should a society do what it can to insure that all children are having these values instilled by these resources? Otherwise, we may have one community within the society that may feel random cannibalism is okay because their parents say so, their community says so, their local laws say so, and the books they read say so.



and we do have communities in our society that have a different sense of right and wrong -- take the Amish. and everyone's fine with that.

i think your cannibalism example is extreme, probably too extreme to be taken seriously.

it's near impossible to come up with a set of rules that everyone should live by. simply because something works for you doesn't mean that it will work for someone else. this is why law, and societies, are always shifting and changing and altering themselves. they are elastic by definition, they must change and adapt to their continually evolving circumstance (you seem comfortable tossing out Civil Rights due to our "new" enemy) and anyone looking for a timeless set of rules that are always correct for all people in all circumstance are going to be disappointed because it simply doesn't exist.
 
Irvine511 said:




but there are few morally dengenerate hypocrites who get paid more than Rush Limbaugh.

I doubt that, as well, but that's not what the writer of the article said.
 
AEON said:


Melon - you and homophobia is like McCarthy and communisim - you see it everywhere.

The "dimension" of discussing why people had a problem with this news story was simply to demonstrate how random our moral outrage can be.


Well because it's blaringly obvious in this thread. How many times have you been called out on making that dimension your focus?:eyebrow:
 
Irvine511 said:


i think your cannibalism example is extreme, probably too extreme to be taken seriously.


Wikipedia - The Korowai tribe of southeastern Papua is one of the last surviving tribes in the world engaging in cannibalism

What if these folks immigrated and moved to a remote part of Wyoming? What moral rule set should apply?
 
Last edited:
melon said:

B]Foley was not having a consensual affair. He was sending illegal sexual messages to people who are undeniably minors by any stretch of the imagination (e.g., 13 and 15 year olds), in addition to sending illegal sexually harrassing messages to a subordinate. Whether that "subordinate" was male, female, 17 years old, or 50 years old, it is still inappropriate, unethical, and illegal to engage in that kind of behavior in the position that Foley was in. As such, he deserves the wrath that he's getting.
[/SIZE]

Melon [/B]

I just want to make sure I am following your logic here - if Foley sent these lewd e-mails to 16 a year old consenting non-subordinate male, then you would have no problem with them? (assuming 16 is the age of consent in the state where this occurs)
 
AEON said:


I just want to make sure I am following your logic here - if Foley sent these lewd e-mails to 16 a year old consenting non-subordinate male, then you would have no problem with them? (assuming 16 is the age of consent in the state where this occurs)

What else could you do? They would be two consenting adults in a consenting relationship.

Honestly what is your point?
 
AEON said:


Wikipedia - The Korowai tribe of southeastern Papua is one of the last surviving tribes in the world engaging in cannibalism

What if these folks immigrated and moved to a remote part of Wyoming? What moral rule set should apply?


WTF does cannibalism in Papua and Wyoming have to do with some Republican pervert?

Why is it that when the Right wants to put homosexuality in "context" they have to resort to ridiculous extremes?

WTF??
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


What else could you do? They would be two consenting adults in a consenting relationship.

Honestly what is your point?

Some people are pointing out 1) The messages between the two indicate some level of consensus 2) he was not Foley's subordinate (I am not exactly sure what a page does - but I guess this kid didn't answer to Foley).
 
martha said:


He was Foley's page, which makes it a subordinate relationship.

Why are you looking for excuses for this guy?


If you care to go back through this thread - you would see that I am definitely not making excuses for this guy. Foley's behavior is disgraceful on many levels. And so is the behavior of the Republican Party leadership regarding this issue.
I am simply pointing out the randomness in which several posters here label something as morally reprehensible.

Foley's conduct disturbs me very deeply. I have always looked at the Republican Party as sort of a “last hope” to save my country from a long slide into moral bankruptcy. I admit – I have allowed myself to be deceived.
 
melon said:
I don't even know why this dimension was added to this discussion originally, except to be homophobic.

I think deep set the homophobic tone for this thread, with his opening two posts.

Of course, he did try to bring it back to the true issue when he pointed out that Speaker Hastert once coached a boys wrestling team, and what that might imply :hmm:
 
AEON said:
If you care to go back through this thread - you would see that I am definitely not making excuses for this guy. Foley's behavior is disgraceful on many levels. And so is the behavior of the Republican Party leadership regarding this issue.
I am simply pointing out the randomness in which several posters here label something as morally reprehensible.

Foley's conduct disturbs me very deeply. I have always looked at the Republican Party as sort of a “last hope” to save my country from a long slide into moral bankruptcy. I admit – I have allowed myself to be deceived.

I'm glad to hear this.

I wondered.
 
AEON said:


I just want to make sure I am following your logic here - if Foley sent these lewd e-mails to 16 a year old consenting non-subordinate male, then you would have no problem with them? (assuming 16 is the age of consent in the state where this occurs)



while i might have a moral problem, if the age of consent is 16, then i do not have a legal problem. there are things that are legal that i would never do and i find them immoral, but that doesn't mean they are or should be illegal.

we do not make laws encouraging one specific code of morality and outlaw anything that deviates from that code. if we did, you'd see the regulation of what goes on in your bedroom to an extreme degree -- missionary position, not during menstration, for pro-creation only, etc.

in our society, we leave the idea of "morality" up to the individual, up to a point -- we make illegal those activities which can be demonstrated to cause harm to the individual, another individual, or to society as a whole. thus, we do not legislate what you *should* be doing in your bedroom, but we do legislate and make illegal things that you *should not* be doing in your bedroom because they have been demonstrated to cause harm (ie, sex with a minor, sex with animals, etc.)
 
AEON said:


Wikipedia - The Korowai tribe of southeastern Papua is one of the last surviving tribes in the world engaging in cannibalism

What if these folks immigrated and moved to a remote part of Wyoming? What moral rule set should apply?


since they are immigrating to our country, they will be subject to the laws of this country.

:shrug:

no eating people.
 
AEON said:
I just want to make sure I am following your logic here - if Foley sent these lewd e-mails to 16 a year old consenting non-subordinate male, then you would have no problem with them? (assuming 16 is the age of consent in the state where this occurs)

I wholeheartedly believe in the concept of "statutory offenses," in addition to "Romeo & Juliet" laws, as long as they are equally applied between heterosexual and homosexual cases (and, unsurprisingly, many states have not done that).

What defines a "statutory offense," however, is determined by the states, not at the federal level. In this case, it appears that a 16 year old is legally defined as an "adult" when it comes to sex, and if two adults wish to engage in consensual sex acts, it is none of my business.

If you're looking for me to recoil in the "ick factor," that's not my style. Personally, I do find the idea of someone older being with someone incredibly younger to be gross, but if both consenting parties are legal adults, it is not my right to interfere.

Melon
 
AEON said:
Wikipedia - The Korowai tribe of southeastern Papua is one of the last surviving tribes in the world engaging in cannibalism

What if these folks immigrated and moved to a remote part of Wyoming? What moral rule set should apply?

Properly applied secular humanism would negate the possibility of cannibalism, because the action infringes on the right to life, liberty, and happiness of the person being eaten.

That is a standard that transcends all religions, which makes it appropriate for a pluralistic society--and makes it a good argument when telling people of other religions--including the Korowai tribe--why their religious beliefs are wrong.

And it's the standard by which I know Christian prejudices are wrong, as well.

Melon
 
And back to the sickness and madness of the GOP...

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/04/hastert.foley/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A former aide to former Rep. Mark Foley said Wednesday he notified House Speaker Dennis Hastert's office of concerns about Foley's behavior over three years ago -- two year before previous accounts have suggested top GOP leaders knew of the issue, according to The Associated Press.

There was no immediate response to the report from Hastert's office.

Kirk Fordham told the AP about his warning after resigning Wednesday amid allegations that he tried to protect Foley from congressional inquiries into his inappropriate contacts with teenage pages.

Fordham was the top aide to Rep. Tom Reynolds, R-New York, and once held the same job for Foley. In his resignation statement, Frodham vigorously denied taking any inappropriate action on Foley's behalf.

"When I sought to help Congressman Foley and his family when his shocking secrets were being revealed, I did so as a friend of my former boss, not as Congressman Reynolds' chief of staff," Fordham said. "I reached out to the Foley family, as any good friend would, because I was worried about their emotional well-being. At the same time, I want it to be perfectly clear that I never attempted to prevent any inquiries or investigation of Foley's conduct by House officials or any other authorities."

Reynolds is the chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, which is working to keep the GOP in control of the House in November's elections. The scandal not only has rocked the Republican leadership but it has become an issue in Reynolds' upstate New York district just weeks before the vote.

"It is clear the Democrats are intent on making me a political issue in my boss's race, and I will not let them do so," Fordham wrote in his resignation.

Reynolds would not say Wednesday whether he asked Fordham to quit. However, Reynolds said he thought it was "inappropriate" for his chief of staff to negotiate with a news outlet over its coverage. And he said Fordham believed he was becoming a "distraction."

Foley, a six-term Florida Republican, resigned Friday after his e-mails to a teenage boy who had served as a congressional page became public -- and as ABC News was about to air more explicit records of instant messages the congressman exchanged with other pages.

ABC reported that Fordham offered the network an exclusive on Foley's resignation if it agreed not to air transcripts of the most explicit messages. Wednesday, citing unnamed GOP sources, it said Fordham had interceded with Republican leaders to keep concerns raised by the family of a Louisiana teen from the full three-member board that oversees the page program.

The network also reported that Fordham's associates consider him a scapegoat for Hastert, R-Illinois, who has been sharply criticized for his handling of the issue. But Ron Bonjean, a spokesman for the speaker, said Hastert had no advance knowledge of Fordham's resignation, nor did he demand it.
Conservatives rally behind Hastert

The resignation comes as key conservative House members voiced support for Hastert but questioned how he handled the Foley matter.

The call for Hastert's resignation came Tuesday in an editorial on The Washington Times Web site. The editorial charged that "either [Foley] was grossly negligent ... or he deliberately looked the other way."

A spokesman for Hastert said the speaker would not step down.

And in a statement released Wednesday, Rep. Mike Pence, R-Indiana, and Joe Pitts, R-Pennsylvania, said "regardless of our reservations about how this matter was handled administratively, we believe Speaker Hastert is a man of integrity who has led our conference honorably and effectively throughout the past eight years. Speaker Dennis Hastert should not resign.

Rep. Pence is chairman of the influential Republican Study Committee, and Pitts is chairman of the conservative Values Action Team.

A key Hastert ally, Republican Ray LaHood of Illinois, called the call for Hastert to step down "absolute nonsense."

"The speaker brought us through 9/11. He's helped the president with major legislative initiatives," LaHood told CNN on Wednesday.

"He's been a good, strong speaker and has been able to deal with ethical conduct of members of Congress. ... This idea he should resign is absolute nonsense, and it's just a lot of political fodder for people who want to make hay 35 days before the election," LaHood said.

Shadegg shows support

Arizona Republican Rep. John Shadegg also rallied to Hastert's side, by circulating a letter that says the calls for Hastert to resign "are unwarranted and fundamentally unfair."

The letter, dated Tuesday, said at least two newspapers, including the Miami Herald, knew of an e-mail exchange between Foley and a page "for months" and didn't view the contacts as significant.

"And, after conducting their own inquiries, they decided not to publish the story or pursue the matter further," the letter continued.

"To demand (Hastert's) resignation based on the current facts and before the investigation that he has called for is completed, is unwarranted and wrong," the letter said.

But another member of the Republican leadership, Rep. Roy Blunt of Missouri, said Tuesday said he would have handled the Foley situation differently, the AP reports.

"I think I could have given some good advice here, which is you have to be curious. You have to ask all the questions you can think of," Blunt said, according to the AP. "You absolutely can't decide not to look into activities because one individual's parents don't want you to."

CNN's Dana Bash, Deirdre Walsh and Andrea Koppel contributed to this report.

I'm glad that Hastert was caught in his lies.

Melon
 
AEON said:
Foley's conduct disturbs me very deeply. I have always looked at the Republican Party as sort of a “last hope” to save my country from a long slide into moral bankruptcy. I admit – I have allowed myself to be deceived.

Here's your first mistake: treating elections as voting for the papacy, instead of treating it as voting for the Board of Directors of a corporation. I don't care what "good Christians" the board says they are. I want a board that runs an efficient, legal, and profitable company that will flourish in the long term.

In fact, to be honest, I am immediately suspect of any politician that touts his or her "Christian credentials," because the first question I ask is what he or she is trying to hide. This is a long-running political tactic that used to be exclusive to the Bible Belt, where a highly corrupt politician would run an exclusively "religious" campaign to deflect from his political failures. And now, over the last few elections, it seems that corrupt "Bible Belt tactics" have found their way into the entire country.

If you're looking to save anyone from "moral bankruptcy," look to yourself and your neighbors. I don't appreciate having someone else's morality legislatively imposed on me, just as I'm sure you wouldn't want Islamic Sharia law legislatively imposed on you. After all, according to many Islamic nations, we're the "Great Satan," you know.

Melon
 
melon said:
And back to the sickness and madness of the GOP...

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/04/hastert.foley/index.html



I'm glad that Hastert was caught in his lies.

Melon

So, the Miami Herald and its reporters sat on the story. I wonder why?

I'm sure the U.S. government didn't pay them to do so. Newspapers and reporters have way too much integrity to do gov't's PR work. Well, most of the time...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Miami_Herald#Government-paid_journalists

Government-paid journalists
On September 8, 2006, Miami Herald's president Jesús Díaz Jr. fired three journalists because they had allegedly been paid by the United States Government to work in anti-Cuba propaganda TV and radio channels. The three were Pablo Alfonso, Wilfredo Cancio Isla and Olga Connor.[1]. Less than a month later, and following the preasure of the Cuban comunity in Miami, Díaz resigned after reinstating the fired journalists. Nevertheless, he continues claiming that such payments, specially if coming from organisms of the sate, violate the principles of journalistic independence[2]. At least other 7 journalists that don't work at the Herald, namely Miguel Cossio, Carlos Alberto Montaner, Juan Manuel Cao, Ariel Remos, Omar Claro, Helen Aguirre Ferre, Paul Crespo and Ninoska Perez-Castellón, were also paid for programs on Radio Martí or TV Martí [3], both financiated by the government of the United States though the Broadcasting Board of Governors, receiving a total of between 15,000 and 175,000 USD since 2001.
 
Last edited:
So far I've heard 3 conspiracy theories related to the timing of all this.

1) House leadership including, Dennis Hastert, knew about the messages but delayed (pardon the pun) acting because control of the House may tip on one single seat.
2) Some Democrats and/or sympathetic media members sat on the story until 1 month before the election so as to maximize the damage to Republicans.
3) Gay Rights activists, angry at Foley's refusal to come out of the closet, exposed him.

One of them is probably true. I wonder which one?
 
Well, considering that a former aide to Foley has mentioned that Hastert knew about this two years prior to when Hastert claimed he knew about all this, #1 is looking to be the most logical answer.

Melon
 
Before guessing which conspiracy theory might be true, I'd rather wait for a full investigation to take place.

Anyhow, to paraphrase what Charley Rangel said today, if Hastert resigns, it's bad for Republicans. If he doesn't resign, it's bad for Republicans. And that is that.
 
Bluer White said:
Before guessing which conspiracy theory might be true, I'd rather wait for a full investigation to take place.

Anyhow, to paraphrase what Charley Rangel said today, if Hastert resigns, it's bad for Republicans. If he doesn't resign, it's bad for Republicans. And that is that.

They're in full destruction mode. Macaca, now this. Can't wait to see what comes up next.
 
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.--Ann Coulter

:lol:
(made me laugh anyway)
 
That Ann Coulter bit just goes to show you she doesn't give a damn about morality - it's all political. I'm even guessing that she'd go as far to defend a rapist if it somehow suited her political purposes. (I'm sure if it fit her political purposes she'd even go as far as to defend U2's decision to release another Best Of :wink: )
How do you defend this man's actions?
I'm sick of hearing about how he's gay..as if that matters...he's allegedly a child pornographer, and that's all that matters.
 
AEON said:


Some people are pointing out 1) The messages between the two indicate some level of consensus

Where was there CONSENT? Where?

AEON said:

2) he was not Foley's subordinate (I am not exactly sure what a page does - but I guess this kid didn't answer to Foley).

He sure the hell was...:huh:

You're really stretching.
 
Back
Top Bottom