http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...p;type=politics

 

Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla., resigned from Congress on Friday, effective immediately, in the wake of questions about e-mails he wrote a former male page.

 

"I am deeply sorry and I apologize for letting down my family and the people of Florida I have had the privilege to represent," he said in a statement issued by his office.

 

The two-sentence statement did not refer to the e-mails and gave no reason for Foley's decision to abruptly abandon a flourishing career in Congress.

 

Foley, 52, had been a shoo-in for a new term until the e-mail correspondence surfaced in recent days.

 

His resignation comes less than six weeks before the elections. It was not clear how Republicans would fill his spot on the November ballot.

 

Personally, I think its the first step towards an indictment. Even this wouldn't have derailed his candidacy - he would have won handily regardless in that very red district.

So what are the rules on this for the election? Can the GOP nominate a new runner, or is Foley on the ballot?

From ABC News

 

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/0..._resigns_o.html

 

Hours earlier, ABC News had read excerpts of instant messages provided by former male pages who said the congressman, under the AOL Instant Messenger screen name Maf54, made repeated references to sexual organs and acts.

 

He was the Chair of the House Caucus for Missing and Exploited Children.

From ABC News

 

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/0..._resigns_o.html

He was the Chair of the House Caucus for Missing and Exploited Children.

Put him in the stocks. That is just embarrassing.

People like this need to get their sacks chopped off. Seriously.

I am glad this came out before he was reelected.

district isnt that red. according to Cook Political Report, his District voted for Bush by 2% more than Kerry. "R2"

 

either way, chalk up this seat to the Democrats now. The replacement, who hasnt been named, doesnt have enough time to get off the ground and fund raise, especially without any name recognition and there's no way Foley will get enough votes for the party to nominate a replacement if he is kept on the ballot.

 

here's your linky...

 

http://www.cookpolitical.com/races/report_...comp_sept20.pdf

Actually, because its post primary, there can be no replacement on the ballot. Foley's name remains - but if Foley wins, the party can choose who fills the spot IIRC.

 

More bad news, it appears the house leadership knew of this as early as this spring and did nothing about it.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6092901574.html

 

The resignation rocked the Capitol, and especially Foley's GOP colleagues, as lawmakers were rushing to adjourn for at least six weeks. House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) told The Washington Post last night that he had learned this spring of some "contact" between Foley and a 16-year-old page. Boehner said he told House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), and that Hastert assured him "we're taking care of it."

 

It was not immediately clear what actions Hastert took. His spokesman had said earlier that the speaker did not know of the sexually charged e-mails between Foley and the boy.

Actually, because its post primary, there can be no replacement on the ballot. Foley's name remains - but if Foley wins, the party can choose who fills the spot IIRC.

 

More bad news, it appears the house leadership knew of this as early as this spring and did nothing about it.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6092901574.html

That is misleading from you. Hasters said they were doing something about it, you just don't know what it was, or if it worked. It also said that they didn't know the extent of it (the emails), so saying they knew of this implies that they knew it all. Granted, they should have assumed the worst from the start, but you are making assumptions yourself in your accusation that they knew and did nothing. That being said, if the guy is guilty, they need to make an example out of him.

That is misleading from you. Hasters said they were doing something about it, you just don't know what it was, or if it worked. It also said that they didn't know the extent of it (the emails), so saying they knew of this implies that they knew it all. Granted, they should have assumed the worst from the start, but you are making assumptions yourself in your accusation that they knew and did nothing. That being said, if the guy is guilty, they need to make an example out of him.

 

If the Republican house leadership knew about the allegations, and if they did nothing (two big ifs), then I think we can count on the Democratic leadership to hammer the Republicans. Boehner's already retracting his story about informing Hastert, BTW.

That is misleading from you. Hasters said they were doing something about it, you just don't know what it was, or if it worked. It also said that they didn't know the extent of it (the emails), so saying they knew of this implies that they knew it all. Granted, they should have assumed the worst from the start, but you are making assumptions yourself in your accusation that they knew and did nothing. That being said, if the guy is guilty, they need to make an example out of him.

 

So if this was a priest, would it be acceptable for a bishop to have just been "working on it" six months later? In three days, from the first revealed contact, other pages have come out and cited IM conversations with him where he was sexually explicit with teenage boys.

 

Wouldn't you at least ask him to step down as the chair of the caucus overseeing missing and exploited children?

 

If Hastert was working on it, he was only working on hiding it.

So if this was a priest, would it be acceptable for a bishop to have just been "working on it" six months later? In three days, from the first revealed contact, other pages have come out and cited IM conversations with him where he was sexually explicit with teenage boys.

 

Wouldn't you at least ask him to step down as the chair of the caucus overseeing missing and exploited children?

 

If Hastert was working on it, he was only working on hiding it.

Have to agree here.

 

Plus, it seems pretty stupid politically for the GOP. If they saw something like that before the primaries (was it?), you think they'd move quick to get a new candidate.

Foley's fondness for the young guys was a surprise to me but apparently not to some others down here. My supervisor's husband said Foley had borderline stalked a male student intern at my institution about eight years ago when he was still in local politics.

I hope this pedofile goes to prison for a long long time... Too bad he won't...

He'll make some tear soaked, whining sob-story "I was deceived by Satan and the lih-brul media" on the Trinity Broadcasting Network in a few years after getting out of Federal Pound Me In the Ass Prison and become the darling 'prodigal son' of the evangelical Christian Right. They'll probably turn it into a political crusade to stop the Democrats and our downspiraling culture from corrupting good, pious 'Christians' with their boyish good looks and underage homosexual trauma they cause in middle aged male closet case self-loathers. It could be a positive move for the 'culture war' election crap to mobilize the Christian Right base in a few years, assuming this sexually harassing jackass makes his Swaggert-esque mea culpa.

LCR, that post was horrible. Before you start spewing crap on it, let's see what happens.

 

This asshole deserves to get everything he has coming to him. And furthermore, IF this was covered up, those people deserve to get ripped as well.

LCR, that post was horrible. Before you start spewing crap on it, let's see what happens.

 

This asshole deserves to get everything he has coming to him. And furthermore, IF this was covered up, those people deserve to get ripped as well.

I'm just saying people who have done just as bad and/or worse have been welcomed by the Christian Right. And please tell me that the far-religo nuts like Robertson, Falwell etc. aren't going to turn this nugget into a "See, our culture of Satan's deception can even tempt and destroy a pious Christian conservative man." to somehow spin this as anti-liberal.

 

The man sexually harassed a child and should pay for it with criminal sanctions. But with his connections, he'll likely do little time and (sadly) be welcomed back by the Christian Right ™ who is more interested in theocracy than the actual precepts of their religion.

There's a joke about "pound me in the ass prison" in there somewhere....

I'm just saying people who have done just as bad and/or worse have been welcomed by the Christian Right. And please tell me that the far-religo nuts like Robertson, Falwell etc. aren't going to turn this nugget into a "See, our culture of Satan's deception can even tempt and destroy a pious Christian conservative man." to somehow spin this as anti-liberal.

 

The man sexually harassed a child and should pay for it with criminal sanctions. But with his connections, he'll likely do little time and (sadly) be welcomed back by the Christian Right ™ who is more interested in theocracy than the actual precepts of their religion.

We're supposed to be taught forgiveness. But, this kind of stuff shouldn't be forgiven, IMO, which makes me a "bad Christian" I suppose.

That's a whole different argument but I don't think forgiveness necessarily brings a relationship back to where it once was.

Slate.com has the really really creepy IM conversation log on their website. Members of the house leadership as well as the Congressional Page Oversight committee people said they were aware of this as early as late last year.

And indications are from Fla. that everyone knew this guy was a pedophile for a long time.

 

How the hell do people like this 1) get elected, and 2) get on a committee trying to eliminate what he was doing?

 

What a douchebag. We can now call our government the equivalent of the Catholic Church in this regard, I guess, now, can't we?

And indications are from Fla. that everyone knew this guy was a pedophile for a long time.

 

I'm finding out that is true as well, as noted earlier. I had no idea. He always seemed slimey, and he's been on the wrong side of two land conservation battles I've been periherally involved in, but I figured his slimey was just average elected official cheat-on-your-wide kind of slimey.

 

Edit to add: The comment of mine above about cheating on a spouse was generic and directed at all elected slime who do it. Foley is actually single, so at least his actions are not adulturous, regardless of what else they may be.

Edited October 2, 200619 yr by FlaSoxxJim

This has happened before,with a Democrat, and he didn't get jail time either. In fact, he was re-elected 5 more times after the deed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerry_Studds

 

Studds is remembered chiefly for his role in the 1983 Congressional page sex scandal, when he and Representative Dan Crane were censured by the House of Representatives for separate sexual relationships with a minor – in Studds's case, a 1973 relationship with a 17-year-old male congressional page. The relationship was consensual, but violated age of consent laws and presented ethical concerns relating to working relationships with subordinates.

 

During the course of the House Ethics Committee's investigation, Studds publicly acknowledged his homosexuality, a disclosure that, according to a Washington Post article, "apparently was not news to many of his constituents." Studds stated in an address to the House, "It is not a simple task for any of us to meet adequately the obligations of either public or private life, let alone both, but these challenges are made substantially more complex when one is, as I am, both an elected public official and gay."

 

As the House read their censure of him, Studds turned his back and ignored them. Later, at a press conference with the former page standing beside him, the two stated that what had happened between them was nobody's business but their own.

 

KInda ironic that Crane apologized for his deeds, and lost his election, while Studds did not, and was reelected again and again. Don't misread this, I think he should get jail time, especially considering his position in trying to stop this sort of thing, just wanted to share this with you all that strange things happen in politics.

Turns out the GOP leadership may have known about this since the spring, 2005, 2001.

 

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/1...taff_warne.html

 

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."