As events unfolds it appears that House leaders knew about Mark Foley's perversion for several years without removing him.
On Capitol Hill, House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., denounced sexually explicit instant messages Foley sent in 2003 to pages as"vile and repulsive"and denied that House leaders had access to them.However, Hastert and others, including Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, and Rep. Tom Reynolds, R-N.Y., the chairman of the House campaign effort, for months had been aware of a questionable 2005 e-mail exchange between Foley and a Louisiana teen.
GOP leaders are facing questions of a cover-up while Democrats across the country seize on the scandal, demanding an independent investigation and calling for some Republicans to resign their leadership posts.
Republican candidates, meanwhile, are distancing themselves from Foley and seeking inquiries. Some Republicans also are calling for accountability from GOP leaders who knew about some of Foley's behavior and failed to take action.
"If they knew or should have known the extent of this problem, they should not serve in leadership,"said Rep. Christopher Shays, a Republican in a competitive re-election fight in Connecticut.
I'm glad some Republicans are standing up to the complicity of the party leadership with Foley's immorality, but I'd go farther than Representative Shays and say that no Congressman who knew of Foley's actions deserves to remain in office. Even if Foley committed no crimes, his actions were reprehensible and he should have been thrown out of the House; Article 1, Section 5 of the Constitution gives the House the power to expel a member for any reason with a two-thirds majority. Any Congressman could have entered such a motion or even held a press conference, but none had the courage to do so.
That the Democrats have done worse is irrelevant. Frankly, no one expects the Democrats to take the moral high road -- and they don't claim it. The Republican party is supposed to stand for family values, for personal accountability, and for a definite boundary between right and wrong. When we condemn Democrat politicians for their plentiful despicable acts but then do the same ourselves we undermine not only our moral authority, but also every other cause we advocate. How will the War on Terror fare if Democrats take control of Congress because Foley wasn't cast out from among us earlier? How many babies will be aborted because Roe v. Wade continues to stand as law? How many innocents will be victimized by thugs because their own right to carry weapons continues to be infringed? How many will continue in poverty because of misguided wealth redistribution schemes?
Thanks a bunch, Republican "leaders". With your pathetic play-along attitude you've severely threatened everything our party claims to stand for. America will suffer for it.
As harsh towards the Republican leadership as your post is, I doubt it's going to do any good. Criticism and calls for change from those who are going to vote for your party anyway doesn't carry a lot of water.
Can we have an update on your site Michael. So far it would appear that No Republicans knew about any actual sexual behavior and dealt with the odd behavior. We are certainly not allowed to believe that homosexuals are more likely than others to bother little kids, are we?
The bigger question might be how long the Dems have hd the really offensive IM's. Did they hold them to do the maximum political damage close to the election. We know Woodward did so with regards to his new book. He admits it.
RK said: "We are certainly not allowed to believe that homosexuals are more likely than others to bother little kids, are we?"
You're allowed to believe whatever you want.. but that doesn't make those beliefs true or factual.
A pedophile is someone who is attracted to children. Rarely do pedophiles develop an attraction to adults, making the grouping of them with the rest of the adult population (hetero- or homosexual) dubious. The gender that the pedophile is attracted to is irrelevant; the attraction (and, if acted upon, the crime) is the same. Most pedophiles also would not identify themselves as "homosexual". The confusion of terminology may lead to labels like "homosexual pedophile" or "heterosexual pedophile", but the basic point is the same. The common element is an attraction to children.. and it is that common element that separates them from the rest of society and makes them a group to be looked at as one, not two or more.
Randy: I'm still reading about it, but "odd behavior" of this sort seems like it should have raised some red flags.
Mark: There's plenty of evidence that homosexuals abuse kids more than heterosexuals do.
Mark,
That may be true for pedophiles interested in little kids, but most pedophiles attracted to post-pubescent kids (as was Mr. Foley, who was interested in 16 year olds) have interests that go upwards into the 20s and higher. It's those interested in early-pubescent or pre-pubescent kids that are warped to the degree that it is to the exclusion to all other interests.
In other words, someone interested in 6 year old boys is probably not interested in 26 year old men, but someone interested in 16 year old boys will probably find some 26 year old men attractive.
MW: Those statistics depend on the accuracy of the respondents' indication of their sexual orientation. A man having sex with a male child is a "homosexual pedophile".. but that man may or may not be "homosexual".
RA: Actually, that's not true.. and being a homosexual myself I can attest to that. A 26yo man is not nearly as attractive to a pedophile (post-pubescent or otherwise) as a 16yo.
Being the definition of homosexual is "Of, relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex." any pedophile who is attracted to children of the same sex is in fact homosexual by definition. you may not want to acknowledge the fact they are homosexual because it makes you look bad, but you can't always get what you want.
Mark: You wrote, "RA: Actually, that's not true.. and being a homosexual myself I can attest to that. A 26yo man is not nearly as attractive to a pedophile (post-pubescent or otherwise) as a 16yo."
Is this a non sequitur or an admission of some sort? What does your homosexuality have do do with whether or not you can attest to pedophilia?
tP: Remove the attraction to children and most pedophiles would probably be asexual, so they're not most accurately described as "homosexual".. but as what they really are "homosexual pedophiles".
MW: It relates because older guys who used to hit on me when I was 18 and 19.. no longer hit on me now that I'm 26.. even though I'm at least as attractive as I was at 18-19. And while those guys who were hitting on me at that time weren't pedophiles, they were definitely attracted to "post-pubescent" males, which is the only thing they have in common with pedophiles of that type.
Mark:
Your comments raise some serious questions about you.
DD: Then by all means go ahead and ask them. Be specific. Don't just make an ominous-sounding comment like "raises some serious questions" with nothing to back it up.
Mark,
To the extent that what you're saying is true, it's something of a departure from heterosexuals that are attracted to post-pubescents. They are more attracted to 16 than 26, but they are not unattracted to 26 the same way they are unattracted to men. I'm not sure why this would be.
On a side note, I should come clean and say that though I am heterosexual I don't have any moral problems with homosexuality (indeed, I think they should be able to marry). I am just not sure I buy the notion that there isn't a good deal of overlap between homosexuals and teen-boy-interested men and heterosexuals and teen-girl-interested men. And to the extent that pedophilia is a "third category" apart from homosexuality and heterosexuality, I would say that it primarily applies to those interested in the younger of the young (pre-pubescent and early-pubescent).
I certainly could be wrong, though.
RA: I think the grey area comes in because of the fairly arbitrary determination that an 18yo is an adult and a 17 or 16yo isn't.
I, for example, am not attracted to guys who are much older than me or much younger than me.. and it's exactly like my non-attraction toward the opposite sex. I wouldn't want to get involved with a 40yo man or a 18-20yo man to the same degree that I wouldn't want to get involved with a woman (of any age).
Mark,
Don't be so dense. You and I both know what I'm talking about.
DD: Don't be so coy. There are any number of things that come to mind, but if you're at all interested in getting answers to those questions about me instead of just carrying on in ignorance, you have to ask me specifically what you'd like to know.. and I will answer.