I think this has to be the funniest (and sickest) comment from Republicans that I’ve seen on this whole mess. He said this on Sunday, on Chris Wallace’s show on Fox. The site has a video of The Newt saying all this.
Wallace then asked: “How would it have been gay bashing?” Gingrich replied: “Because it was a male-male relationship,” adding that “there was no proof” that Foley was a “predatory person.”
Gimme an f’n break!
And here’s a video from 2002 of Foley speaking in the House to the pages.
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Bad Behavior has blocked 6419 access attempts in the last 7 days.
#29
The “liberals” (whoever you think they are) wouldn’t have him…
#4, Awake.
Amazing post. My vote for the post of the year.
A US Representative soliciting boys on the internet. And now it turns out he was himself molested by a priest.
Church, meet State, State, meet Church.
#33. … they are both out to screw you.
I realize you don’t want to hear it, but it’s possible Dennis Hastert is telling the truth. That he didn’t know about the IMs and only knew of some e-mails which were not explicit. In which case, there is no basis for going after Foley except suspicion based on the reputation of his being gay, and might be doing something inappropriate. If they’re wrong, they get pilloried as going after a closeted gay Congressman. I suspect even if they’re right, the Democrats would have gone after them, just like they didn’t approve of anyone criticizing Bill Clinton’s peccadilloes.
#35. Actually, many Democrats (including, presumably, one of the current Senators from NY) criticized WJC’s extracurricular doings. If you will recall, many Democratic elected officials called for Congress to censure him for it. We just said that it (and lying about it) did not merit impeachment. But no, the neoPuritains of the GOP just had to go for it …
karma is a stone bitch, dude.
But anyway. I would reserve judgment on what Denny Hastert knew and when. Until a full investigation by the House Ethics Committee is complete, that is.
Hastert is not helping himself any. From the WSJ:
“As speaker, Mr. Hastert is most responsible for the page program, and when parents of a Louisiana teenager were upset by an August 2005 Foley email to their son, a former page, the complaint was taken to Mr. Hastert’s staff last fall. But Mr. Hastert says he wasn’t fully informed by his aides until recently, and even now he often mistakenly speaks of the issue being handled by the House Page Board, when in fact most of the six member panel were excluded from knowing of the complaint.”
http://tinyurl.com/jjn2g
Oh, and BTW, it is the Conservatives who are most loud in their demands that Hastert resign. Rev. Moon’s Washington Times is somewhere to the right of Atilla the Hun.
35,
ABCD, wanting to fuck young boys is not homosexuality. It is pederasty. Even attempting to defend it diminishes you.
Leave it to the Republicans to equate homosexuality with pedophilia. They couldn’t be more wrong!
Yeah, but that’s not what the e-mails said reportedly. I’m not sure how you’re distinguishing pedophilia and pederasty, but it seems your definitions turn millions into pedophiles.
If a 52-year old man wants to fuck a 16-year-old boy, it’s pederasty. Ask your mother (or any adult woman) for clarification.
BTW, here’s what Foley said about the Clinton/Lewinsky matter:
Hypocrisy on top of perversion. Defend it at your peril.
I’m not defending Foley, but I think your use of the word pedophile is just ridiculous. In your view Washington DC and several other states have not banned pedophilia.
By that logic, yes.
I have teen girls, and if a 52-year-old man even looked at them sideways I’d castrate him with an entrenching tool.
38. You might want to review the definition of homosexual.
I’ll even help you out.
From the Scribner-Bantam English Dictionary:
“homosexual: one who is sexually attracted to persons of the same sex.”
Seems reasonable. You’ll remember from the liberal party line dictionary that you are a person only after passing through the birth canal.
But I have no doubt there are a multitude of interesting variations on this theme.
Now go look up “disingenuous.”
RBG
44,
Yeah, right. A 52-year-old man wanting to bang teen boys is a homosexual. If you truly believe that I have nothing left to say to you.
44. So if a 52-year-old man who wants to screw young BOYS is a homosexual, then a 52-year-old man who wants to screw young GIRLS is a …
oops.
and the conservative party line is that you are a person from the moment of conception to the moment you stand between them and a dollar.
Alix, pardon me for my ignorance of gay-related things like this, but why wouldn’t a 52 year old man who bangs teenage boys be gay with the added fetish of liking them young? What if he were interested in 18 year olds? Or 25 year olds? Where is the cutoff? What about a 19 year old interested in a 14 year old?
If he was interested in 18- or 25-year olds, He’d be gay. A 19-year-old interested in a 14-year old is pushing it to the point of illegality.
Do you have kids? Would you let your teen child of any sex be involved with an adult?
The cutoff is if you are older than 17, you should only be sleeping with people your age or older. Anything beyond that is indefensible in my mind. Call me a prude if you will.
I agree that it’s wrong with an underage child. My question has to do with definitions of terminology ‘gay’ and ‘pedophile’, and with psychology. If homosexuality is being attracted to someone of the same sex, what difference does the age have to do with it? Age seems like a completely different issue overlayed on top of the homosexuality which could be related to a fetish, to a power trip, etc. It could also be a heterosexual thing as we saw with the teacher and her student whom she later married after getting out of jail.
46. Heterosexual.
Oops if they’re underage.
RBG
In my own opinion, the difference is the age of majority.
If the person is allowed to vote, then they are of age. Let them screw whoever they want for as long as they want.
If they can’t vote because we believe they are too immature then they are too young to be having sex with adults, especially those in their 50s. They are still in need of our protection. I am much more fuzzy and tolerant of minors having sex with someone close to their age even if over 18.
This is imprecise because although the voting age is 18, children mature at vastly differing rates. But it is consistent.
The Republicans made some serious tactical errors on this.
First, when they became aware of it, they should have told Foley not to run again. He could have finished his term but another candidate, with clean hands, would be running and thus keep the seat. They could gotten given Foley a job doing whatever failed Republicans do.
Secondly, the House Ethics Committee and the House Page Committee should have been fully informed and have it known that Foley would not be running again. The Democrats would not have made an issue out of this if he left quietly.
Third, Haskert’s office should have admitted that they didn’t follow up. Haskert claims he wasn’t fully informed. That means he was told at least something about the situation.
Instead, they allowed Foley to think life was going to continue on as usual. Resigning at the last minute totally insults his constituents. The Committees were not informed so it now appears that there is a cover up. Haskert is denying that he knew anything. So he is either incompetent, out of the loop, or lying. Or a combination of all three.
How did this happen? Simple, they have let the power go to their heads and just don’t care about ethics, the people, or Congressional rules. Like most scandals, this could have been a very small bump in the road instead of the big problem it has become. It would have been easier to forget had it been covered 9 or 10 months ago.
First things is getting what happened right. The parents complained to their Congressman about the email. They felt it was inappropriate, but didn’t want to pursue the matter, just wanted the emails to stop.
At some point Hastert was made aware of the 1 email (and only the 1) and thought the matter was settled. No one thought the email deserved more than a warning to Foley to stop the emails. Which he apparently did. At this point is where Hastert screwed up….he should have or at least the Congressman in charge of the page program should have ordered a complete investigation. If they had, they would have found out about the other IM’s that actually were very explicit.
As I and several of my friends and family said today in our emails to Hastert……he was the man in charge, he has to fall on his sword. For those of you that think that all Republicans are religious conservatives and that all Conservatives are Republicans….thats not true and this whole mess is showing you which is which. The people calling for Hastert to resign are by and large traditional Republican conservatives or traditional conservatives (except for the Wash. Times…very Moonie).
Those lining up behind Hastert are the neo-cons and the religious conservatives. They all are pissed about Foley….but split on who else needs to go.
I honestly feel Hastert didn’t know, or any of them about the really nasty IM’s.
Mr. Foley will be charged most likely. The boy was underage in both Florida where Foley was, and LA. where the boy was. In 21 other states the kid would have been age of consent. Bet Foley wishes he had lived in Montana and the kid had lived in Calif.
Technically, a pedophile is anyone having sex with those under the age of consent. For sentencing purposes, it matters if there was actual sex, and the age of the victim. Under 14 seems to be the cutoff for most courts for some reason. After that then details make a difference. Actually most pedophile’s don’t care if their victims are male or female, though some do have a preference, it’s usually not the case that they do. There is a segment of the Gay population(as there is among the str8 population, that prefer *young women*, but not children) that likes young men. Not children, but fully functioning young men (usually between 15 or 16 and 18)….this is according to my old law tutor.
I was 2 years old when the Gary Studds thing happened. But he was a Democrat…took a 16 y/o boy across state and International lines and had anal sex with him. He was censored, but stayed in the House for 5 more terms. And his party backed him. And he was never charged with any crime. Anyone know why? Yet now, the Democrats are screaming for blood for a guy’s blood that, as far as we know at this point, never had sex with a minor, or even met one of his online victims, can anyone say…*hypocrisy*???
Oh…and why did ABC (the Republican network according to many in here) hold the really bad IM’s back until 5 weeks before the election, when apparently they had them for months.
I pose the last 2 paragraphs just to play devils advocate and generate 50 more comments 🙂
I’m disgusted at the idiotic Republican response to this. And I’m a Republican!
p.s. Some of you morons need to quit generalizing all Republicans as a homogenous homophobic group. That’s like saying all Democrats are gay-lovers embracing the gay lifestyle.
p.p.s. I can’t believe they’re letting some of the cussing going on above in the comment section.
On the question of Pedophilia -vs- Homosexuality.
In this case it is a combination of both: a Homosexual Pedophile. It’s that simple, no argument.
FWIW, this whole thing stinks, regarldless of the sex of the ‘page’.
I am 46 years old… if I were hitting on 16 year old girls I should be considered a perv, and the father should probably beat the heck out of me. Plain and simple. Imagine any 46 year old man hitting on a 16 year old girl… pedophilia, plain and simple.
If I were to choose to hit on a 16 year old boy, it means that I would be a homosexual and pedophile.
Besides, as a 46 year old straight man, I’ll choose a 30 year old woman over a 16 year old giggly girl any day. It’s simple… with a30 year old woman you get intelligent conversation, great sex, independent thought, experience and hopefully some sophistication. With a 16 year old woman you get…. what?… actually nothing that I want from an even casual relationship.
I wouldn’t want leader of our country interested in any 16 year old of ether sex actually making governing choices for our country. Period.
And anyone that comes to the defense of a person like Foley, a 56 year old man flirting with a 16 year olf boy or girl, is probably somewhat of a perv themselves if they can’t see the problem in that scenario.
How many guys out here would have loved to have had a Playboy bunny in their bedroom when they were fifteen years old? If you were jerking off to the Playboy centerfold when you were under age, what’s the difference if your fantasy came true by a probing hot adult babe that liked breaking in under age guys? Why shouldn’t homosexual kids have the same rights as heterosexual kids? The number one problem in America’s Right today is three letters: S-E-X. They are so repressed about it that it manifests in sexual deviant behavior.
>hey would have found out about the other IM’s
I’m not sure how they would find out about those unless they were sent copies by the page in question. I think I’ve misunderstood the story. I didn’t catch the harassment angle, and thought it was more of a Gerry Studds situation.
#53, joshua
You make some very valid points. The one error though, is no one here is defending Studd or what he did. He was censored in a Democratic controlled House and his constituents thought enough of him that they did re-elect him.
Then came the Moral Majority and Bill Clinton affair. Both highlighted how pure Republicans were. The Defense of Marriage Act and [almost all] Republican sponsored anti gay marriage bans spreading across the country. Republicans have set themselves up as protectors of children, taking credit for Megan’s Law and sex registries.
The loudest outcry is from the very groups the Republicans have kissed butt with, their Christian Right base. Yes, Democrats are appalled. It seems to me though that they are appalled at the hypocrisy and failure of the Republican leadership to act when one of their own has violated a trust. You only have to once again look at Awake’s post #6 on this thread to see the outright hypocrisy and how this behavior is rampant in those holier then thou Republicans.
Should the headline be Pursuing, rather than Persuing?
If Hastert knew what was going on and didn’t do anything about it, his head should be on a platter. End of subject.
That said, I can understand how it might be almost impossible to believe what could easily sound like misinterpretation or innuendo.
Keep in mind that even now, after all that has been revealed – there remains a sense of absolute incredulity by the nation. How could one of the highest politicians in the land – one instrumental in bringing forth laws to prosecute internet pedophilia – one who is gay and a republican and would need therefore to tread especially carefully – how could this person of all people be involved in such things? That’s the nation now. It would be even more difficult for Hastert back then to accept sketchy info re an “overfriendly” gay guy when “the parents themselves didn’t want to pursue the matter” as stated above.
How might you investigate a gay man without invoking the very worst untrue stereotype of gay people? How do you do that without fueling rumors and leaks and perhaps unfairly damaging a career? And invoking the wrath of a nation tired of Republican witch hunts? Especially a gay witch hunt.
The easy answer in hindsight, is of course, is you hold your nose and just do it openly without regard to the validity of the accusation or information. The Right has always been criticized for using the welfare of children as the greater concern when it comes to limiting rights of adults. To be sure there is a tricky balancing act here but that principle of “children first” should prevail.
RBG