Please visit the new home of Majikthise at

« Inappropriate places to put coffee | Main | Crane Accident on E. 13th Street »

September 29, 2006

Republican Mark Foley resigns from Congress over emails to underage staffer

News_bannerRepublican congressman Mark Foley, the founder and co-chair of the Congressional Missing and Exploited Children's Caucus, will not seek re-election after being caught sending creepy emails to a 16-year-old staffer.

Will a failed pick-up for a Republican mean a successful pick-up for the Democrats?

Update: ABC has the instant messages. Julia reports that the concern trolls are keepin' it real on ABC's blog.



TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Republican Mark Foley resigns from Congress over emails to underage staffer:

» Foley's follies from Weblog - Gay Global - Times Online
One of the weekend's stranger news stories concerned the Floridan politician Mark Foley. Foley, a Republican member of the House of Representatives, just resigned following allegations that he had sent sexually explicit emails to under-age (which in th... [Read More]


"[F]ounder and co-chair of the Congressional Missing and Exploited Children's Caucus..."

Jesus, how creepy is that shit? I guess it should come as no surprise that he's pro-torture too.

Conservative values: It's what's for dinner. Or else.

I just love it - all these GOP moralistic god-fearing types are the ones MOST guilty of being hypocrites! And, yet they bitch about the damage that Liberals do to America's morals and values. At least Monica and Bill were consenting adults! The funniest part is the last paragraph where the writer frames the pages as "young people who compete to see how Washington works" - this is EXACTLY how Washington works folks - how much more realistic does it get than some sleaze who speaks out of both sides of his mouth? Live and learn kids, live and learn!

I'm sure he just wants to spend more time with his family. Every time a Republican resigns, America-hating liberals start ascribing Machiavellian motives when they’re not actually flinging dirt. It’s so ugly. The guy just loves kids. Have you liberals no shame?

And Hastert knew about Foley's predelictions a year ago.

Foley certainly deserves to be pilloried for hypocrisy, but the emails are "creepy" only if you think any adult male with an interest in teenage boys is creepy. (And that would be, I suspect, many, many gay men. After all, "the love that dare not speak its name," according to Oscar Wilde, was not homosexuality, but the love of an elder man for a younger who "has all the joy, hope and glamour of life before him. That it should be so the world does not understand. The world mocks at it and sometimes puts one in the pillory for it.")

The true question here is what took so long?

the emails are "creepy" only if you think any adult male with an interest in teenage boys is creepy. (And that would be, I suspect, many, many gay men.

Is that what you "suspect," parse? Spend a lot of time on that suspicion, do you?

Middle aged bosses who pester high school volunteers on instant messenger with queries like "Do I make you horny?" and "Will you send me a pic?" are creepy. Assign the genders however you like.

Attraction is not the same as soliciting cybersex.

Those ims are the missing smoking gun. As sketchy as those emails are, I was wondering how they were sufficient for all this.
On a side note, this only goes to confirm my suspicion that repubs that spend lots of time talking about child abuse are pedophiles, and the most passionately anti-gay are fllllllllllaming.

Oh, and parse?
Big difference between finding the youngest sexually mature members of your desired sex attractive and being a pederast.
I'm not sure if you're trying, perhaps unconsciously, to tie homosexuality and pederasty together, or whether you're a gay man who just admitted what you should consider an embarassing personal truth.
Besides, homosexuality wasn't really any more accepted back in the days when pederasty was a social norm. (I know Foucault said otherwise, but his grasp of the facts was kinda.... problematic.) The pederastic relationship was supposed to end when the youth got facial hair, which is to say reached sexual maturity. Homosexuality was frequently mocked, and to be called gay then had much the same basic social meaning it does today in frats and high schools across the land.

How will the right spin this? You win if you said “Foley had the decency to resign, which is more than Clinton did”. You might aver that one was a minor and one was not, and the reactionary rejoinder will be “let’s not confuse the issue”.

Pederasty and homosexuality are not synonymous, but they are certainly tied together. Many of the most noteworthy members of the homosexual community--inclucing, but not limited to Wilde--have been pederasts, and this is nothing gay men need to be ashamed of.

I'm betting that this thing gets more ink in the mainstream press in the next couple days than the torture issue got in the previous month.

Only if you willfully confuse pederasty with liking them young, parse. Pederasty is technically any man lying with another, but is usually used to mean an adult man with a young boy. The greek historical example shows even they recognized pederasty as distinct from homosexuality. It's different kinds of sexuality. I'm not attracted to prepubescent girls as a straight man, and most pedophiles have no sexual interest in other adults.
Besides, pederasty is an outdated concept from a time when the sexual abuse of children was considered one of the highest forms of love. And I have to ask you, parse, are you gay? Because if you're not, you're verging on homophobia when you try and assert that. And if you are, what the hell is going on in your head?
It's ok to be gay, sheesh.

Tighty-Whities and Republicans Who Like Young Boys
and Chris Wallace Soils His Armor.

Republicans have a bad day…

We have Mark Foley a republican congressman from Florida's 16th Congressional District, a 52 year old man, sexually harassing a 16 year old (boy) congressional page, resigning from congress immediately. The congressman was even asking the young boy for photos of himself. Sexually explicit computer messages. Something like “Would you please slip your tighty-whities off for me.” and “Are you turned on?” Creepy times 10.

We have snippets of Bob Woodward’s new book, where Laura Bush is walking around the White House hallways calling for Don Rumsfeld’s resignation.

Then a CIA report that says that the invasion and occupation has made the United States LESS SAFE and recruited 1 million new crazed terrorists who are willing to kill themselves and all of us.

Reports are now saying that American troops are coming under attack 100 times EVERY SINGLE DAY. That’s an attack about every 13 minutes. Give or take a roadside bomb.

Crooked republican lobbyist, Jack Abramoff now is being reported to have had hundreds of meetings inside the White House. Offering gifts to the richest men in the White House. Free concert tickets, free dinners to nice restaurants, free trips, free travel. FREE FREE FREE.

Quite ironic how the poor of Katrina were left to starve and die, but Bush’s friends get concert tickets and a free meal. The average American can’t afford to take a vacation and these corrupt pieces of human garbage get free trips to Scotland to play golf. All they had to do was agree to screw over the Indians. It seems from the evidence that it was an easy call for them to make.

The question one wonders is how much more harm to America could George Bush and the republicans do to America if they were with the other side?

And finally Bill Clinton’s slam dunking of poor Chris Wallace. Mr. Wallace ended up peeing all over himself and lying about all the tough questions he asked the Bushies.

All this and we left out, TORTURE. George W. Bush will be known forever to history as the torture president. Both al Qaeda and the United States, I’m afraid.

Oh yeah….I almost forgot. MA-KA-KA!

Pederasty and homosexuality are not synonymous, but they are certainly tied together.

I cannot accept that statement, mainly because it's NOT TRUE. You'll need to provide some scientific documentation for me to believe otherwise, though I know genuine research of this nature exists. The religious right would like us to believe otherwise, but it just ain't true. Most child molesters are heterosexual males. End of story. Until you can back up your fallacious claims I'd back off on this one, parse. I've had it with people trying to link homosexuality to pedophilia, pederasty, child abuse, or whatever else you want to call it. I have a gay brother, so it makes me fucking sick when people try to smear homosexuals.

Let it go.


though I know genuine research of this nature exists.

SHOULD read:

though I know genuine research of this nature DOES NOT exist.

GOP. Florida. Children.

Can Mel Sembler be far behind?

I suppose if you want to, you can say if two males are having sex, the question of whether it is "homosexuality" depends on the ages of the males, but that seems like a peculiar definition to me. Pederasty is a type of homosexuality--some homosexuals are pederasts, and some are not. I agree, brad, it's OK to be gay. And it's OK to be a pederast.

Again, if you want to claim that pederasty is not homosexuality, then Plato, Socrates, Alexander the Great, Oscar Wilde et al did not practice homosexuality when they had sex with other males.

Listen, the age of consent in Washington DC is 16. Foley could have had sex with the boy he was sending email to, and it would have been legal. All you people trying to defend gay people by trying to claim that an attraction to 16, 17 and 18 year old boys is something sick that no gay man would ever be guilty of really need to get a clue.

Presumably, male-on-male rape indicates that the rapist is gay, too.

All this stuff about pederasty and pedophilia is wrong. A 16-year-old is not a child. A very large percentage of people are attracted to 16-year-olds of the sex to which they're attacted as adults. Lots of lesbians find teenage girls attractive, as do lots of straight men, and so on.

The point that parse is missing badly, though, is that middle-aged bosses are not supposed to have sexual relationships with underage staffers. As Lindsay points out so clearly, there's this huge, gaping difference between attraction and cybersex.

You can change the genders of the participants in the IMs around in any direction you like, and it remains very, very creepy.

Pederasty is a type of homosexuality--some homosexuals are pederasts, and some are not.

This is really weird. The point everyone is making is not definitional - it's that there's no correlation in the modern west between attraction to adults of a certain sex/gender and attraction to children of that sex/gender. Such a correlation has been implied again and again by the anti-gay lobby, and it has no factual backing.

If you want to group them together definitionally, I guess that's not wrong, per se, but given that all definitions are pragmatic and positional, I don't see the point of defining homosexuality so, unless you are looking to give support to bigots.

Preahers who rail against sexual excess in public turn out to be private lechers; conservatives who go out of their way to denounce homosexuality turn out to be gay. The doctor Bush tried to appoint to a women's health board, and who wrote a book on God's plan for women, emotionally abused his wife and anally raped her. And bootlicking sycophants who abase themselves before the Great Leader always seem to bray the loudest about "freedom". We could have an interesting discussion here on the psychology of patriarchal types, but for now I'll just ask: why are we surprised by these things anymore?

The conduct was creepy and wrong-- but was it illegal in DC? I seem to recall 16 being considered the age of consent in many states.

Personally, I couldn't care less about the staffer's age. As far as I'm concerned, any age of consent above 14 is something that fits 17th century Massachusetts better than the 21st century. It's the nature of the Congressperson-staffer relationship, which so far appears to be not particularly consensual.

That said, I don't remember where I saw this, but I definitely read a comment somewhere saying that it's a really bad sign for the Democrats if the best they can do is bring down Republicans on scandal charges. Scandals are supposed to be the icing on the cake that is a successful agenda, not the entire reason to vote for the party.

The Democrats didn't bring Foley down. ABC News got ahold of the emails and Foley resigned.

The comments to this entry are closed.