The GOP reels from the Foley scandal.

llad12

Diabloii.Net Member
The GOP reels from the Foley scandal.

WASHINGTON – The scandal involving Rep. Mark Foley (R) of Florida, who abruptly resigned his seat Friday, has engulfed the Republican leadership of the House of Representatives, adding an explosive issue to the pile of woes facing the GOP in its tough battle to retain control of Congress.

Mr. Foley quit Congress after he was confronted with evidence that he had sent sexually explicit electronic messages to former teenage House pages. Foley had already been accused earlier of sending what Republicans call "overfriendly" e-mails last year to another former page, a teenage boy from Louisiana. Members of the House GOP leadership acknowledge they knew about the less-explicit e-mails months ago and say they were handling the issue quietly, at the request of the boy's family.

Republican leaders say they did not know about the more-explicit messages until last week. But critics charge that at the first sign of possible trouble earlier this year, when the leaders learned of the e-mail traffic between Foley and the Louisiana boy, the GOP leadership should have acted more forcefully against Foley.

Adding to the black eye for the GOP, which calls itself the party of family values, is the fact that Foley had co-chaired the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children, and had sponsored numerous bills aimed at protecting children from predators.

"It's a disaster" for the Republicans, says Larry Sabato, a political analyst at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville. "This could be the tipping point," he adds, referring to the 15-seat net gain that Democrats need to win control of the House.
Christian Science Monitor

Apparently, some members of the GOP had been aware of Congressman Foley's predilection for young pages for quite some time:

A Republican staff member warned congressional pages five years ago to watch out for Congressman Mark Foley, according to a former page.

Matthew Loraditch, a page in the 2001-2002 class, told ABC News he and other pages were warned about Foley by a supervisor in the House Clerk's office.

Loraditch, the president of the Page Alumni Association, said the pages were told "don't get too wrapped up in him being too nice to you and all that kind of stuff."

Staff members at the House Clerk's office did not return calls seeking comment.
ABC News

Good Lord Almighty ... :shocked:



Comments?
 

DurfBarian

Diabloii.Net Member
I don't think the party will end up "reeling" from this. Voters have short memories. Who was that Tom Delay cat anyway?
 

LunarSolaris

Diabloii.Net Member
Would you be quick to post a scandal involving the Democratic party Llad?

It's all about balance. I think this is a newsworthy story, but I'm hesitant to engage because I fear you would have an agenda in posting this.
 

Bortaz

Banned
LunarSolaris said:
Would you be quick to post a scandal involving the Democratic party Llad?

It's all about balance. I think this is a newsworthy story, but I'm hesitant to engage because I fear you would have an agenda in posting this.

LOL.




Well, at least now we know not only Democrats can be homosexuals. So, no more accusing Republicans of hating gay people, right?
 

Dondrei

Diabloii.Net Member
A paedophile is not a homosexual, regardless of their target. In fact the last study I read demonstrated absolutely no connection between the sexual attraction of paedophiles to adults and children; most boy-targeting paedophiles are heterosexual.

This is pretty disgusting, but frankly I'm not surprised. A lot of people in high office are paedophiles, you know. And of course, all politicians are creeps. There has to be something wrong with you if you want to do that for a living.

As for the GOP, it's nice of them to have periodic scandals to keep them fresh in people's minds.
 

Yaboosh

Diabloii.Net Member
I love how you so cleanly distinguish between pedophilia and homosexuality when the kid in this instance was 16 at the time. So, when does pedophilia turn back into homosexuality, 17? 18? Does it depend on local law?
 

Dondrei

Diabloii.Net Member
Yaboosh said:
I love how you so cleanly distinguish between pedophilia and homosexuality when the kid in this instance was 16 at the time. So, when does pedophilia turn back into homosexuality, 17? 18? Does it depend on local law?
Then you have a problem with the concept of paedophilia itself.
 

Yaboosh

Diabloii.Net Member
I have a problem with your concept of pedophilia if you consider a man's interest in a 17 year and 364 day boy pedophilia and a man's interest in an 18 year old boy homosexuality.
 

Dondrei

Diabloii.Net Member
Yaboosh said:
I have a problem with your concept of pedophilia if you consider a man's interest in a 17 year and 364 day boy pedophilia and a man's interest in an 18 year old boy homosexuality.
Oh okay, so you accept that being sexually attracted to a 17 and 364 day old person is paedophilia (LOL, you Americans and your conservative laws) while being sexually attracted to an 18 year old person isn't? But you think there's a big difference in my application of the terms "homosexual" and "paedophile"?
 

Yaboosh

Diabloii.Net Member
I don't know why you got that from my post, though I will accept that it may be my fault for not being clear.

You suggested that I may have a problem with the concept of pedophilia. Then I suggested I do indeed have a problem with what you seem to be using as a concept of pedophilia IF that concept involves interest in a boy a day away from being legal pedophilia, but simple homosexuality the very next day.

It is either pedophilia both days or neither of the days.

By this, I am indicating that perhaps the man interested in a 16 year old boy may simply be homosexual, as opposed to a pedophile. If interest in a 17 year and 364 day old is not considered pedophilia, then there seems to be a buffer zone revolving around the (rather arbitrary) legal limit.

Of course, this entire argument of mine seems to assume you are using the local legal age as a base measurement for pedophilia, and that may not be reasonable.


Edit: Wiki defines pedophilia as interest in prepubescent children, so I guess that this case wouldn't be defined as such, and would simply be homosexuality, if you go by Wiki.
 

Dondrei

Diabloii.Net Member
Yaboosh said:
I don't know why you got that from my post, though I will accept that it may be my fault for not being clear.

You suggested that I may have a problem with the concept of pedophilia. Then I suggested I do indeed have a problem with what you seem to be using as a concept of pedophilia IF that concept involves interest in a boy a day away from being legal pedophilia, but simple homosexuality the very next day.

It is either pedophilia both days or neither of the days.

By this, I am indicating that perhaps the man interested in a 16 year old boy may simply be homosexual, as opposed to a pedophile. If interest in a 17 year and 364 day old is not considered pedophilia, then there seems to be a buffer zone revolving around the (rather arbitrary) legal limit.

Of course, this entire argument of mine seems to assume you are using the local legal age as a base measurement for pedophilia, and that may not be reasonable.


Edit: Wiki defines pedophilia as interest in prepubescent children, so I guess that this case wouldn't be defined as such, and would simply be homosexuality, if you go by Wiki.
Well, this days thing is an intrinsic problem with the idea of paedophilia, where does one draw the line? It isn't clear. If you're trying to say now that this particular case isn't paedophilia then that's a different argument, I can't find that kid's age at the time of the emails in the article in fact.

I thought Bortaz was conflating the terms "homosexual" and "paedophile", given that I was under the impression from the article that the kid was significantly under-age.

Here's another, related problem for you; if a paedophile starts a relationship with, say, a ten-year-old, which continues until the child is say, twenty-five, is that relationship still paedophilic?
 

Yaboosh

Diabloii.Net Member
He was 16, so I don't even know if it could possibly be considered pedophilia at all anymore, if Wiki is to be trusted.
 

llad12

Diabloii.Net Member
LunarSolaris said:
Would you be quick to post a scandal involving the Democratic party Llad?
Quck? Why Lunar ... I waited three days. To some, that's all time necessary for a resurrection. :jig:


LunarSolaris said:
It's all about balance. I think this is a newsworthy story, but I'm hesitant to engage because I fear you would have an agenda in posting this.
An agenda ... why little ole me?? :hide:

---------------

Recent articles concerning the alleged knowledge (of Foley) and lack of action from people in-the-know within the GOP are almost as disturbing to me as the scandal itself.

For example:

GOP Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL) let Foley spend "a lot of time" with pages, including private dinner with one, after GOP knew Foley was a problem.
Americablog

Check out this video from ABC


I don't know if these stories are true ... cripes, I honestly hope they aren't.
 

Dondrei

Diabloii.Net Member
Yaboosh said:
He was 16, so I don't even know if it could possibly be considered pedophilia at all anymore, if Wiki is to be trusted.
If he was 16 then he would've been completely legal in Australia. But no, I don't think Wikipedia can be trusted on something like this, the application of the term is highly contested.

Personally, I'd like to see subcategories of sexual congress with a minor (or whatever it's called) created so we can distinguish between the various degrees of paedophilia. I mean, some old guy brutally raping a five year old is kind of different to a nineteen year old copping a feel with a "consenting" (admittedly, I'm begging the question there) fifteen year and eleven months old.
 

Yaboosh

Diabloii.Net Member
But pedophilia itself is not a crime at all, and I imagine not many criminal codes bother to define it, so the argument over what is pedophilia and what is not is really not a legal matter, but simply a cultural one.


Edit: If you want to hear about strange consent laws, in Florida, the law is that if you are 18-24, you can have sexual relations with a 16-17 year old. If you are older than 24, you cannot have sex with 16-17 year olds. 24 year old can, 25 year old cannot. Makes sense to me?
 

jimmyboy

Diabloii.Net Member
Foley made sexual advance towards a minor boy. You guys can label him anyway you wish, I'm labling him a criminal.

Anyways, I don't know what's more shocking -

1) The crime itself, or
2) The fact that he's CO-CHAIRMAN of the "Congressional Missing and EXPLOITED children's Caucus," or
3) Whether it's true that fellow politicians KNEW and KEPT his SECRET.

What I want other than criminal prosecution of Foley is -

1) investigation & prosecution of his fellow politicians for aiding and abetting;
2) combing the system for other victims
3) determine how the Hell Foley got to become co-chairman of the group that is suppose to protect children!
 

jimmyboy

Diabloii.Net Member
Yaboosh said:
Edit: If you want to hear about strange consent laws, in Florida, the law is that if you are 18-24, you can have sexual relations with a 16-17 year old. If you are older than 24, you cannot have sex with 16-17 year olds. 24 year old can, 25 year old cannot. Makes sense to me?
I think the Florida legislature recognizes that there are many relationship left over from highschool where the age difference may be 4-5 years which carry on to adulthood.

So a senior dating a freshman can be 19 and 14. A couple of years later, the same couple is 22 and 17.

That's the only thing I could think of.
 
Top