A few quick thoughts on the Congressman Mark Foley scandal --
First to state the obvious, we don't think there's any excuse for his actions. We are opposed to Congressmen chasing under-aged boys. We don't see a need to belabor the obvious points here.
The press and especially Democrat partisans have gotten way out ahead of the story. We keep viewing news accounts to the effect of "Republican leaders knew about this..." or "knew about these emails..." It is not clear at this point what the "this" is that House leaders knew about months ago. Knowing about emails asking for a kid's picture or when the kid's birthday was are very different than the explicit messages that came out in later news reports. Lots of news accounts and partisan commenters are being sloppy in conflating the two.
The fact they were aware of some emails or IMs does not mean they were aware of the whole situation back in the Spring, or last Fall. There will be an investigation in the coming weeks, and who knew what when will come out in time. But it has not come out yet, and all those screaming "cover-up!" are assuming information they don't have, and/or disingenuously playing fast and loose with the facts for partisan gain.
Most of the great outrage coming from the left is as phony as a three dollar bill. These are some of the same folks who have recently fought tooth-and-nail against a proposed law that would make it illegal for an adult to take a minor across state lines to get an abortion. These are the same folks who want the law to allow abortion on demand, without parental notification or consent, for girls of any age. This is the party of the Kennedys, Bill Clinton, Gerry Studds, Mel Reynolds, Barney Frank, etc. The party of "whatever floats your boat" morality can dial down the sanctimony just a little bit.
Nevertheless, Republicans must not fall into the trap of seeming to excuse Foley based on the fact of Democrats excusing bad behavior by Democrats in the past. (Of course, there will be accusations of excuse-making from some on the left no matter what). Nothing we've said here should be construed in any way as an attempt to minimize or excuse Foley's conduct. He grossly violated the public trust. He engaged in predatory behavior towards minors. He seems to have knowingly violated a law against such conduct that he himself helped to pass. He has resigned, which was appropriate. He will be investigated and possibly prosecuted. Republicans must stay above board and do the right thing here, even as the Democrats continue to try to exploit the issue for their own ends.
The page is not really an "under-aged boy."
Teenagers are not children. The law says as much in almost all countries where age of consent is typically 14-16. The indidividual states as well have lower ages of consent than the federal govt uses to define a “minor” for internet/telephone contact. Even in DC, age of consent is 16.
In fact Foley did not commit a crime, because the age of consent in the jurisdiction is 16. Federal solicitation charges depend on the laws of the jurisdiction. There's no indication that he offered to pay for sex. Sexual harassment is also an unlikely charge because the page in question was not in his emply.
Comment by jak — October 2, 2006 @ 2:42 pm October 2, 2006
Are you serious with this? Democrats excusing bad behavior by Democrats. Sorry but
there is a BIG HUGE difference between having an extra-marital affair and
soliciting sex from an UNDER-AGE MINOR. One while it may be bad judgement is between
a husband and wife the other is against the Law.
Comment by JL — October 2, 2006 @ 2:47 pm October 2, 2006
JL,
Be honest, the wrongdoing of all the Democrats we listed goes well beyond "an extramarital affair."
And we have higher standards than simply determining whether an act is legal or illegal.
Comment by The Editors — October 2, 2006 @ 2:52 pm October 2, 2006
jak,
Our understanding is that the federal online predators law applies to those under 18, regardless of the age of consent at the state or local level.
Comment by The Editors — October 2, 2006 @ 2:55 pm October 2, 2006
Foleygate Has Begun...
IMPORTANT UPDATE
CHECK OUT UPDATE III AND IV BELOW!
POSSIBLE ALTERATIONS DONE TO ORIGINAL EMAILS!
END UPDATE
Tom Maguire from JustOneMinute, Rick Moran from Rightwing Nuthouse, and Clarice Feldman from The American Thinker have been doing some wonderfu...
Trackback by Flopping Aces — October 2, 2006 @ 3:29 pm October 2, 2006
Clinton Pardoned Pedophile Mel Reynolds...
Democrats, they name is hypocracy. The Democrats are so quick to point fingers, but remember that former President Bill Clinton PARDONED Mel Reynolds who was serving thirty months after being convicted of having sex with a sixteen year-old campaign wor...
Trackback by Right Truth — October 2, 2006 @ 3:58 pm October 2, 2006
"The party of "whatever floats your boat" morality can dial down the sanctimony just a little bit."
Your laughable mischaracterization of liberal values is noted. Perhaps the party of "spying on citizens is just dandy" should have delved into the e-mails a little more.
Have any of you read the "over-friendly" e-mails? Just because Foley doesn't say anything explicit, the questions he asks and the manner in which he asks them were more than creepy enough to warrant an investigation months ago. Too bad the idiots who have hijacked the Republican party in the last few decades feel it's more important to protect the political career one of their own than the dignity of an innocent boy.
Comment by Carey — October 2, 2006 @ 3:58 pm October 2, 2006
On one level I agree that the Foley conduct is being generalized beyond the conduct of those who did wrong. Foley and perhaps any others who were careless or casual about allowing it. On the other hand the same is true of arguments that the Democratic party is Stalinist becuase after the primary in Connecticut the party did what it is obligated to do and accepted the wimner Lamont as the party candidate. Both parties generalize any conduct by anyone in other party as being the conduct of the whole party when it seems to be to their advantage. It is also true that this has been a characteristic issue,moral values, for Republican than Democrats. If you apply a standard of moral rectitude to others than you must accept the application of that standard to yourself. I think Jesus said this in the Gospels. Did Republicans expect the Democrats to run with this?
Comment by john henry — October 21, 2006 @ 11:11 am October 21, 2006