Washington File

Geesh, guess I got lambasted there...

You are right, allegation, allegation, allegation...

Look at the liberal media bias coming through...and I, being a liberal, bought into the belief that a) Fastert knew of the allegations and did nothing b)The boys were boys, and not men. c) The boys were working for him at the time d) The emails were explicit and harassing in nature.

So if what you are saying is true (or are they mere allegations??? :) ), then I wonder why this came out? Did the liberal media know that many within Foley's party would turn on him and leaked it for that purpose, to cause embarrasment to the Repubs...interesting.

And if what you are saying is true, then I do have a different take on it, most certainly. As for Mr. Studds, don't know anything about him, so fill me.

[continued]

In addition, Steve, you infantalize the teenaged men as "underaged boys". As I said earlier, the behavior you have taken issue with, thusfar revealed, occured after the pages left the Page Program. Also, as Marc pointed out, in D.C. they were not underaged. And they were not boys but sexually developed young men.

That much acknowledged, you might then explain if your criteria for forcing resignations is based on 1) rumours, 2) nonexplicit emails, 3) allegations, 4) being subject to investigation, 5) being gay combined with any of the previous 4 points. Maybe you have other criteria.

You say that Foley's behavior was wrong, which is a moral judgement, but you also make the error of conflating your moral judgement for a legal pre-judgement.

If you want to force resignations based on a moral judgement of right and wrong, that's cool, but let's acknowledge that Foley did resign based on such a judgement, and not based on a legal finding by a tribunal of any kind, yet.

Meanwhile Studds did much more with an "underaged boy" and refused to resign, defied censure, and has been treated as a hero of Gay Identity. Or, more broadly, of sexual liberation and the newly relaxed morality about such behavior.

Likewise Clinton who was treated with kid gloves by feminists who liked his sexual harrassment initiatives in law and regulations.

[continued]

Now, if you propose that people must resign when allegations are made, fine, make that your universal principle for Dems and Repubs alike.

This could make sense, maybe, if your goal is to err on the side of all allegations prior to the conclusion of investigations, and that you hope to keep those so accused from being sidetracked when doing the nation's business. However, allegations are not always what they at first seem to be. So such a proposal could clog up the and distract the nation's governing representatives, too. What's the balanced approach?

By the way, did you do so in the specific cases of Studds, Clinton, Reynolds, Jackson? These prominent cases set precedents and if you wish to clarify a new precedent, please sayso.

[If there are others here who consider themselves to be liberal or libertarian, please feel free to respond to that, also.)

Steve,

>> "He should have pushed Foley out the door when her first found out ..."

>> "The blame game is lame."

>> "Foley made innappropriate advances towards an underaged boy."

>> "Foley did not commit a crime yet Clinton did, and yet they are both guilty of the same degrading action towards a sub-ordinate?"

>> "his actions were at the very best, innapropriate for a man in such a position of power (as were Mr. Clintons), and at the very worst, harrasment."

Foley resigned. If you want Hastert to resign, it looks like you are playing the blame game here.

We don't know yet that Foley's actions were illegal nor even if they were contrary to harrassment regulations. The investigations were initiated -- with Hastert's advice -- almost immediately upon Hastert's discovery of the IMs.

We don't know, yet, if Hastert knew more than he has thusfar revealed. I'm not sure if you are blaming him for something you have yet to substantiate and are basing your call on a moral judgement about potential wrongdoing or the suspicion of wrongdoing.

Mr. Rottles, engaging in sexually explicit converstions with sub-ordinates is wrong. When that sub-ordinate is 50 years younger than you and barely over the age of majority, I would say that is equally wrong.

The social conservatives want him out because he is gay, the Democrats want him out because of the midterm elections, and the rest of us want him out because his actions were at the very best, innapropriate for a man in such a position of power (as were Mr. Clintons), and at the very worst, harrasment.

[continued]

Was it immoral behavior? State the criteria for immoral sexual behavior. I think social conservatives have different criteria and, in effect, hold politicos to a higher standard than do libertarians and liberals, but maybe some here can demonstrate this is a misperception. Maybe there are quotes and links to prominent libertarians and liberals specifying the criteria by which Foley, and Haster too, had behaved immorally.

Again, if you believe the charge is one of illegality, then, await the investigations rather than talk around the moral issues at stake. If you believe that legality is based on morality, and are libertarian or liberal, please reconcile that belief with the more common tutting of critics of sexual misbehavior.

Marc pointed out the comparison with others who engaged in sex with subordinates -- a page in the case of Studds, an intern in the case of Clinton -- and there is also Reynolds who was convicted of multiple counts of statutory rape of a campaign worker. Reynolds was pardoned (for additional crimes) by Clinton at the behest of Jesse Jackson -- who also had sex with a subordinate (adulterous, as well). The pardoned freed Reynolds to be hired by Jackson as a YOUTH counsellor.

Do critiques of Foley, and of Hastert, also express moral outrage with the story of Reynolds and the helping hands of Clinton and Jackson?

Precisely, what is the immorality that is being highlighted in the Foley scandal?

Why is this a scandal, according to those who have called for Hastert's resignation?

The email exchange that has been revealed doesn't look illegal. This scandal is presented as all about sexual morality in national politics. Morality, not legality.

The IMs add more context but when Hastert got the IMs he promptly sought Foley's quick resignation.

There is no evidence that Hastert condoned the alleged misconduct with teenaged men. There are indications that Hastert's staffers knew about rumors; that Gay politicos in D.C. and Florida on both sides of the aisle had suspicions regarding Foley's homosexual inclinations; but no one has come forth to show that Foley raped, molested, or even harrassed subordiinates.

The email exchange was with a teenaged man of 17 years of age; the IMs with an ex-page of 18 years of age. In DC, the age of consent is 16. The IMs appear to be mutually consentful.

The various investigations should establish the legality, or illegality, of Foley's conduct. Was it sexual harrassment? Maybe, maybe not.

Mark m, I did in fact hear about the case of Gerry Studds. I don't recall all the exact details in that but was that case with someone under the legal age or without concent? Both of those situations can make the diffrence in weither it was in fact a crime or just being outed for his actual sexual preferance.

I also won't deny that there is bias in media, but the bias of each news source is as varied as the political spectrum. There are ones that have a liberal slant, but there are as many that are closer to the center of the road than the GOP tends to claim when making accusations in defence of thier failures.

Foley's actions appear to meet the definition of sexual harassment. This is a response to Steve from Halifax - that angle had not occurred to me. I entirely agree that both are guilty of degrading behaviour toward subordinates.

I'm not going to go out on a limb to defend Foley; he's not fit to hold public office and there's no way I would want Foley to be around teenage boys.

Mark from Saskatoon...how is it that what Foley did is NOT sexual harrasement yet Clinton's actions were? You state Foley did not commit a crime yet Clinton did, and yet they are both guilty of the same degrading action towards a sub-ordinate?

Who is the spin doctor here?

Did anyone note the passing of Gerry Studds on Saturday, a former Democratic congressman? When Studds was found to be having sex with a male page in 1983, he came out of the closet and was hailed as a hero of the gay rights movement, winning re-election. No one even suggested that the Democratic house leader of the time should resign. Compare this to the hysteria over what Foley did. (Kenny, this coincides with your argument.)

We've seen this double standard over and over. When a Democrat officeholder does something wrong of a sexual nature, anyone who objects is accused of being priggish (Studds, Clinton), but when a Republican engages in sexual misbehaviour (Bob Packwood, Clarence Thomas), the media react as though an atrocious crime has been committed.

Incidentally (in reponse to an earlier comment), note that Clinton's illegal act was not adultery, but sexual harassment and perjury in connection with that harassment. Monica Lewinsky was one of many workplace sexual partners, and not all were as willing as Monica.

As gut-churning as I find Foley's emails, it's not clear that he committed an illegal act since sex did not occur, and even if it had occurred, the age of consent in the District of Columbia is 16.

Regarding the comment from "Henry" of Washington, I truly, truly hope this is not *the* Henry Champ of CBC. A professional journalist would not use "your" in place of "you're" - twice in a three line message. Perhaps the post from "Henry of Washington" is that of an imposter?

For every season there is a spin.

Hey Marc...last I checked, adultery is not a crime, pedophilia is!!!

Aaron is right. The blame game is lame..."Well if this was a Democratic homosexual from Vermont"...give me a break...Foley made innappropriate advances towards an underaged boy. How can you possibly blame that on ABC, CBC, BBC etc etc?

That being said, there is no question there is a liberal media bias, for the most part, in Canada, US and Britain...although "liberal" in America has different definition than here.

This scandal issue is not something that can be easily swept under the rug by the republican party. While there is most likely truth to the opinion that this scandal was leaked to impact the fall elections that concern should not be at the forefront of our thought. American voters should not be swayed by republican "double-talkers" . They should focus on the main issue, Foley abused his position, acted innappropriately, and betrayed the trust of his constituents.

Okay I have to say it because it's getting to me. This happens everytime there is a scandal of late.

Stop blaming the 'Liberal' media when the Republicans get called out for slipping up.

This is the same media that went after Bill Clinton when there was questions of his ethics with Monica. If the media is so liberal then it's not just the US new sources as News sources in other nations, the CBC and BBC for example, report on these stories just the same. Are we to believe that only a few select news sources form the US and no where else on earth are 'Fair and balanced'?

It, like many of the Republican party line are begining to wear thin with the constant usage. Going on about how if it was a Democrat the news would be coddling them is a joke if you took two seconds to think about it. Again may I remind you of Monica? Or has the majority of the media have a thing for rooting for the underdog?

Just as with the Liberals in Canada, the Republicans should realize they did something wrong. Better to fess up, try to fix things rather than brush off the attacks as the work of the opposite part in a attempt to undermine them. The explinations are startng to sound hollow and the list of faults and follies are getting longer all the time.

I think it's about time to change the guard in the House and the Senate.

I find Kenny's comments a little silly.

Notwithstanding the fact that homophobic attacks are underway right now regardless of his party affiliation, Foley's homosexuality or lack of it (and for that matter, his political affiliation) really has nothing to do with his actions being wrong - his actions were wrong because the pages were underage and nonconsenting. They would've been just as wrong if the pages were girls and he was straight.

Yuki Yano,
The House of Representatives is a separate branch of government - President Bush has no control over its members and he can't fire any of them. It's a good idea not to speak about something until you can contribute something meaningful to the discussion.

As for the scandal... Foley is a pervert and has righfully resigned. The Democrats are clearly engaging in political opportunism, but the Republicans have brought it on themselves if they knowingly didn't address the issue sooner. That's politics for ya

your right kenny, pro-life it is..

do you suppose i could blame the editors..

no your right again, I don't think so..

Ahh the changing perspectives.
If this was a Liberal Democrat from Vermont, the media would be "celebrating his homosexuality" and line up to protect him from the unfair and homophobic attacks by Republicans. Another example of how the media today hates Bush, the duly elected Republican majority, and anyone that doesn't agree with their narrow party line.
Also Henry, good reporting and fairly written. However, I think you meant "Pro-Life" supporters and not "Pro-Abortion" supporters in the Republican party. I don't think there are many pro-abortionists supporting the Republicans these days.

"way to go Brownie, (Dennie) you're doing a good job !".
G W (What! me worry) Bush, you,ve done it again, Another incompetent sufaces and you refuse to fire him or accept a resignation. Oh well, you're next. The country will survive another two years, but at what cost ? Here in Canada, our last "Illustrious Leader, who must not be named, B/M" wiped out his Party for a generation.
Yukio Yano

It's a shame that President Clinton didn't resign over his sex scandal, like Representative Foley did. Would a President Gore really have been so bad?

Google some of the quotes made by the Republicans when Clinton was in the middle of Monicagate and the Republicans had the scent of blood in their nostrils. It was almost embarassing how virulently they attacked him over a stupid pecadillo. Now it comes back to haunt them when one of their own gets caught soliciting sex from teenagers, and they run it under the carpet for years? How hypocritical. Interestingly enough, Fox News finally showed where their true colours this past week when they mis-identified Foley as a Democrat, not once but three times. Liberal media bias, my rear end.

What Foley did was wrong and it was wrong for Congress to supress the problem. But for too long, Congress has held itself above the law, exempting itself from the normal oversight of criminal culpability. The rest of America is answerable to the force and extent of the law. Now it's time to apply this level of accounting to our law makers.
When it matters what you do and not who you are, then we will have justice.

One can't help but notice the hypocracy in "..Hastert cares about children..." Tell that to that teenager and his parents.

He should have pushed Foley out the door when her first found out, then maybe we would believe the Presidents words.