I’m sorry, folks, but some of the spin coming from the Republicans is a little hard to stomach — and Tony Snow is right up there with the worst of it (from The Moderate Voice, his emphasis in the same place I would have):
Soledad asks as “a parent” why any communication between a 16-year old page a Member of Congress doesn’t “raise red flags, major, massive red flags.” Snow responds, “[I]t’s not always pretty up there on Capitol Hill. And there have been other scandals, as you know, that have been more than simply naughty e-mails.”
Ahem. This is rather more than some naughty emails, Tony. Polimom has as little love for Democrats as for Republicans, but that was an outrageously stupid thing to say.
Joe has written an excellent post (and asked some pointed questions); I encourage you to read it all. This, however, caught my eye particularly:
Question: if any 50ish reader of this blog sent similar emails to high school students and if parents and authorities found out would they be called “simply naughty” or would they be characterized in a far more harsh manner…and seek legal action?
I think we all know the answer to that one…
Unbelievable.
(Prior related post here.)
Update:
Local Houston blogger rightwingsparkle writes:
What Foley did was sick and unacceptable and he is gone. That’s what Republicans do with sexual immorality, we kick them out. Other politicans who are sexually immoral are luckier, like Bill Clinton, Gerry Studds, Barney Frank, and Ted Kennedy, they are Democrats.
Polimom thinks she’d do well to read Joe’s question above, and then explain how that applies to some of those folks on her list. Trying to say, “Yeah, but look at those sleazy Democrats” is not only a false parallel, it’s a fairly obvious duck and weave. More:
The Democrats know that a sexual scandal, no matter how sick, is the responsibililty of the adult involved…
It is almost as dispicable [sic] as what Foley did. But I am not surprised.
Unh hunh.
You know, the partisanship nastiness is pretty excessive about now, from both sides, but it’s really odd how folks can’t tell the difference between a high school student and an adult…
Also — Balloon Juice has some wonderful posts up about this incredible political explosion. This is my favorite.
I find the complaints that Democrats might use this for political gain really hard to stomach, especially when they come from someone as relentlessly partisan as the blogger you mention above.
Interesting thing, though; the page in question was 16, right? That puts him above the age of consent in DC. It doesn’t make Foley’s behavior any less creepy and inappropriate, but I don’t think sending suggestive messages to someone old enough to legally consent to sex is against the law, is it?
Again, not excusing Foley here, the abuse of power alone is terrible, even before you add the middle aged guy/teenager dynamic to it.
It’s also interesting that Barney Frank is always on that “sexually immoral” list. Unless I’m forgetting some big part of the story, Frank was dating a hustler who was running a prostitution ring out of Frank’s apartment, and Frank used his Congressional stationery to write letters to help him fix some parking tickets, right? Which is wrong, but a bit different than hitting on teenagers – seems to me Frank’s wrongdoing was the use of the stationery, and of course the terrible judgment of being involved with a hustler.
As mentioned by John, there is the question of what actual law has been broken by Foley. Has this been mentioned anywhere, or is it still being researched? Could it be that he may have only broken a rule of Congress of some sort, and what are the odds of this resulting in some sort of new law, because it is clear that everyone thinks what he did was wrong…but was it illegal, or is it obvious and I’ve missed it
I’ve been trying to pull a post together about exactly that, Jack.
It turned my stomach to read the IM where the page had to go do his homework. I’ve read that the age of consent in DC is sixteen, and also in Florida. Does that make me less queasy? HECK no. Is it illegal? I have no idea, particularly since I don’t know where these pages were when the electronic dialogues took place (email or IM). It may be totally irrelevant what the laws are in DC or FL.
I do know, though, that what Joe said was exactly right: take it into the realm of high school students and teachers, and it’s pretty obvious that we, as a society, don’t think of sixteen as an adult… regardless of laws.
Which is exactly what John Cole wrote about at Balloon Juice (linked at the end of the post, above). In it, he said:
The point wasn’t that the Democrats are sleazier, the point was we kick out sleazes out.
And Gerry Studds page was underage too, so it was a child there as well. And Monica may have been an adult, but I think the use of power on youth here is the same.
No one is defending Foley in any way. Even if he did nothing illegal by law, it was immoral and should be illegal. In fact none of that would ever have been brought up if we could have just agreed, Democrat and Republican, that this was sick and wrong and Foley had to go. But the it was the Democrats who have insisted on distorting things create a witchhunt for Hastert. I think it is totally unfair. If we sound defensive, we have a right to be.
If it turns out that Hastert knew more than the innocuous e-mails and maybe some gossip, then I will eat crow here. But I have been a 16 yr old page in a state legislature and gossip was all it was about. So were inappropriate comments. If they investigated every single one no work would get done. People need to read exactly what Hastert and the leadership did at the time instead of relying on this spin. (I have the link of the timeline on my blogs, TexasSparke at the Chron too)
Regarding Hastert, this is a guy’s life here. People are making judgements on him without having all the facts. That is wrong, wrong.
In our eagerness to punish those who did wrong here, let’s not smear an innocent man.
You might check out my latest post on this at rightwingsparkle too, because some things about this made me even angier.
RWS —
If that had been your only snipe at the Democrats, I might buy that. But it wasn’t. You said:
and
and
Of course you were piling on your political opposites, just like every other hard-core partisan in the blogosphere. The “we don’t keep no sleaze in our perfect red world” flies about as well as the bluest leftie saying “the GOP = the grey old perverts”. It’s all ridiculous.
However, it isn’t just the Democrats who are ticked about Hastert. Here and here for instance.
And nope, I just can’t buy the Monica argument here. Studds I’ll go along with… as long as you throw in the Republican who was also censured that year.
The big difference is “we throw our bums out”. Nothing more nothing less.
Polimom says – Of course you were piling on your political opposites, just like every other hard-core partisan in the blogosphere.
Just like you are doing Polimom. Every time you bring up your “belief” you are not a liberal Democrat, your words that follow belie your claim.
Where does murder, or at the least manslaughter and leaving the scene of the crime, stack up against this alleged illegal activity by Foley??
IF he’s guilty. There was no physical contact or suggestion of such. So he surely didn’t let the individual drown to death because he was afraid being drunk and murdering someone could be bad on his carrier.
Move on , this was a long-known incident by many on the House, Republican and Democrat. The timing to ‘out’ Foley was pure politics. There are too many Democratic skeletons (among other things) in the closet to count when weighed nasty communication to an intern.
And you know, this is the perfect place for me to stop.
Almost, last
Polimom says – And nope, I just can’t buy the Monica argument here.
The young girl, under 21 and not allowed to drink in most states, was an intern learning about statesmanship who was rightfully impressed and awed at the POWER of the President of the United States.
Monica was at his beck-and-call and when BJ Clinton came up (no pun) with the subject of sex, as he reportedly did with to every young woman he had extended contact with, came up often, she serviced him as any lower-class is suppose to do. Had she not been influenced by adolescent pride to keep the blue dress (like an autograph book) she would have been steamrolled by the Democrat/Clinton machine who pointed his finger and lied to all the United States (before the knowledge of the blue dress and DNA) “I did NOT have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky.” Pointing his finger and using ALL his much-ballyhooed charisma, he was the most honest televised TV personality since “Marcus Welby, MD.”
He was impeached but, for lying to the public (oddly that’s NOT a crime) but for the felony of lying under oath, THE EXACT SAME CRIME in which Scooter Libby is charged. Both are also the same in importance – obstruction of justice.
I’m sorry you don’t understand the difference in lying to your wife about an affair, which wasn’t her or his first time, and lying to a court and prosecutor in a Grand Jury Statement. I think Libby is finding that out now.
Jeezum, Lazarus. At least get the facts right. Monica Lewinsky was 22.
When you’re standing on the edge, everything looks to be to the left or right. Pretty funny, actually.
Dang. And here I thought we were talking about sex.
It’s also worth noting that the age of consent in DC (as in much of the US) is 16, and Lewinsky was well past that age.
here’s the difference between the lewinsky and the foley affairs: clinton got a blow job from a consenting adult, a feat that most republicans probably can’t achieve but publicly decry it all while secretly longing to get some, and foley is a pedofile. plus clinton lied since he did not want his wife to know, and the republican leadership covered up a crime since they do not want to lose the election. are these two crimes, and their respective coverups similar enough for the republicans to compare them? and i am not even getting into the “clinton lied – nobody died” business here…
I don’t understand why it should, given that the pages work for Congress. One expects that the pages might develop relationships (not of the inapproriate type) with members of Congress (their employers), and in that case communications such as the e-mails I have heard mentioned (asking about how they and their families were doing after Katrina) might be considered totally appropriate. (The IMs, from what I hear, are a totally different matter.)
The difference between Studds and Crane was that Crane faced the members during his censure, while Studds turned his back on them, effectively telling them to eff off.
John (Blue Bayou) said:
Pot. Kettle. Black.
Polimom said:
I still don’t quite understand this whole “relentless | hard-core partisanship”. Jeesh, folks, politics is about ones values – and I certainly would be very wary of someone who was wishy-washy about their values. I can (and do, often) disagree with John (Blue Bayou), but I read his stuff – he is consistent with his values, and thus I might just learn something. Ditto for Sparkle and the conservatives (with whom I am much more aligned philosophically.) And Polimom – what can I say, she is an excellent writer, and very, very thought-provoking.
All are “relentless”, “hard-core”, – one might also say “passionate”, and manage to get their points across while maintaining a certain amount of civility in their discourse (Maybe not as much as George Will, but to be honest the high-brow intellectuals like Will tend to put me off.)
Now, back to the underlying subject: folks, it isn’t about age in this case, not if the page was at or above the age of consent (and it appears he was.) It wasn’t about age with Monica L. Clinton wasn’t a pedophile, and neither (it appears) was Foley. What it is about is abuse of power. Clinton as President, Foley/Frank/Crane/others as members of Congress, have the power to influence – for good or ill – the futures, careers, lives of those who work for them on apprenticeships – whether they are called interns or pages. These people, at the bottom of the ladder, are very susceptible to being taken advantage of by their mentors, who they look up to – sort of like the students (regardless of age) in a student-teacher relationship. And, even though teachers having sexual relations with students goes back to ancient Greece, it is still gross, disgusting, sleazy, and just plain wrong.
What really makes me PO’d is that those who said “it is just about sex” during the Clinton/Lewinsky episode (it wasn’t just about sex: it was also – and more to the point – about abuse of the power of an official office) now are screaming about how it is about sex (when, in fact, there is no evidence I have heard of that sexual contact actually took place.) Yes, both men are sleazes – and from my viewpoint there is one side which is consistent in this regard (YMMV.)
~EdT.
The facts
When she started as an intern she was 20 years old.
When the news story broke she was 22. Honestly, I don’t know that it was ever reported how old she was when the abuse of power took place. But I am pretty sure what happen wasn’t in her job description.
CORRECTION and APPOLIGY – I apologize for my math error and error in fact in both my earlier posts concerning “that woman.” Monica Lewinsky got her approval to work as a White House intern at age 21. She was around the White House for most of a year BEFORE July 23, 1995, she officially because a satisfying intern at age 22.
Again, my apology as I did my math in my head and should have known by now how to use pencil and paper.
b.j. afficcionado says – here’s the difference between the lewinsky and the foley affairs: clinton got a blow job from a consenting adult, a feat that most republicans probably can’t achieve but publicly decry it all while secretly longing to get some, and foley is a pedofile. …
Not according to John (see the post above you)! He says the legal age in both Washington D.C. and the boy’s home is 16. So if John, who lived in D.C., is correct, as he often is, there are no pedophile charges to be labeled on Foley. I’m not defending Foley or his email (though there’s to date nothing unacceptable found in those) or chat, which if true I find revolting, if not illegal.
Actually, as far as we know at this point, the difference between the Clinton-deal is he actually had physical sexual conduct with this girl above the age of sexual consent and the Foley-deal is NO physical sexual contact (that we know of) with this boy above the age of sexual consent.
As I said before, if it were my choice, Clinton and Foley should be tied in a small boat, pushed out in the Gulf and drowned.
One thing that I said would bother me just as bad as Foley’s actions was if the revealing time on this was politically motivated by Democrats that would make their actions as sleazy as Foley’s – and now we know it was.
A Gay Outing &
Foley: The Democratic Playbook
Polimom says – When you’re standing on the edge, everything looks to be to the left or right. Pretty funny, actually.
I’m sorry you feel like you’re standing on an edge. I see the endless political platform extremely long with plenty of room for everyone. You may see yourself as splitting the edge in the middle but I see you moving up and down the scale depending on the subject. However, in general, most of your points come from the left side of that edge you see yourself splitting. And that’s okay because most people have trouble stepping back to see what is clear to others.
you don’t have to be standing on the left to read the whole text of the emails, available through a google search as a pdf file, from which results that there was an actual encounter in san diego between a page and the congressman, and that also foley was talking about getting drinks together at his place so that they don’t get busted… this implies the page was not of drinking age, which means also not of legal sex age, so my earlier contention stays: oral sex between consenting adults versus underage sex and drinking proposed and probably consumed with the congressman. and i don’t buy the argument that the larger issue is abuse of power in both cases… i am all for having sex with a more powerful partner, but the illegality here is the underage pedofilia. and the coverup: once again the difference between lying to hide an extramarital affair from your wife versus lying to win elections.
“{Chapter 117, 18 U.S.C. 2422(b)} forbids the use of the United States Postal Service or other interstate or foreign means of communication, such as telephone calls or use of the internet, to persuade or entice a minor (defined as under 18 throughout chapter) to be involved in a criminal sexual act. The act has to be illegal under state or federal law to be charged with a crime under 2422(b), and can even be applied to situations where both parties are within the same state, but uses an instant messenger program whose servers are in another state.”
wonder who put forward this bill? hmm… representative Foley…
afficcionado – according to Polimom and John, the page was above age of pedophilia. Creepy? Yep? Pedophilia? apparently not althoung I don’t know.
I do know, if the older person be they a U.S. House Rep., U.S. Senator or U.S. President, or owner of a company with 10 employees, to have sexual relations with a subordinate is often considered an abuse of power by courts no matter what the age of the alleged victim..
Please remember Clarence Thomas: He was followed around from job to job by a subordinate who, when Thomas was nominated for the Supreme Court, saw a way to pick up a lot of power (from Democratics) and money (book deal) by claiming he showed her dirty pictures and made a suggestive statement.
To finish:
afficcionado – the drinking age in Texas is 21, and has nothing to do with sexual consent age which I believe is 16 — younger if the parties are within two years difference in age.
Sorry about my poor spelling and English above, I hit the Post button instead of Preview
ok, you convinced me: maybe the crime here is not the actual crime, but – as the conservatives brought up during the clinton scandal – the coverup… let’s see how it pans out. but polimom is right; if it wasn’t for all the rightwing gaybashing and the exploitation of the fear of gays, maybe the coverup wouldn’t have happened… and maybe the striking hypocrisy in advancing the moral values agenda by an alleged pedofile would not have been so striking and mediatized, and so fake-sounding now.