From the King Of Blogging, Sean Conners. Various articles and op/ed's on just about anything from A to Z. Politics, religion, entertainment and whatever else seems interesting at the moment. Members and non-members alike are welcomed to participate in th
and his erection,,,errr,,,I mean the election...
Published on October 3, 2006 By Sean Conners aka SConn1 In Current Events
Late night comedians had a field day when Pat Stevens, the Senator in charge of the internet in congress, commented that the internet was a "series of tubes" showing how little he knew about the technology he was overseeing. Of course we all remember George Bush senior needing bar codes to be explained to him in a supermarket, exposing just how little shopping the ex pres actually ever did himself. Michael Dukakis was a walking joke after putting on a helmet and riding around in a tank as if he actually knew what he was doing. When Karl Rove was distracted, Geoge W Bush showed off his bad decision making ability by choosing his personal lawyer as the next Supreme Court justice.

We all laughed at those and other images of our leaders being exposed as less than competent in a situation. That all changed last friday when congressman Mark Foley (R) of Florida was exposed thru a series of emails and instant messages as possibly being an active pedophile. Of course, most know by now, Foley was the congressional leader in charge of protecting our children from the likes of pedophiles. It was literally the fox guarding the henhouse.

Those of us outside the beltway are now learning that Foley's antics and "overfriendliness", a nice term either the republican leadership or the media have invented to gloss over the fact that a predator was put in charge of guarding kids, were well known inside the halls. it apparantly was well known that Foley was gay for years, in fact, there is strong evidence that his orientation was the cause of his sudden withdrawal from a Senate campaign in which Foley had raised over a million dollars to run. But his being gay is not the issue for most of us. Him being a pedophile is.

And are we to believe all this "overfriendliness" and illicit emails / messages in which Foley instructs an underage page to masturbate for him and tells him how much he wants to have sex with him are the extent of his activities? How often does it happen that any kind of "addict" (and i'm not talking about alchoholism unless there's a lot of booze in a page's cum) of this sort merely just does a few related activities but doesn't actually do anything "bad" concerning that decision. How many alchoholics, except for Sam Malone on Cheers, hang out with boozers all the time and don't take a drink? How many gambing addicts "casually" watch a game without placing a wager? And how many of those guys caught on Dateline's "To Catch a Predator" claim that they just came to talk?

I have a feeling there is more to this story, and unfortunately, that "more" will probably include reports of sex with underage boys. It's only specualtion, but from my experience, "addicts", in this case, an addiction to young boys, don't just hang around their prey for some good conversation. And Foley's "hanging around" with the pages was something that occured over his 12 year congressional career. Anyone who knows about hunting knows that you go where the animals are that you are hunting for, and probably wouldn't stay long in an area that had no game. Foley has been "buddying up" to pages for 12 years.

Is the old addage true that "where there is smoke, there is fire?" When it comes to children and predators, as a parent of 2 (and one on the way), I prefer not to take any chances. I wish the house leaders would have taken the same approach if they had any knowledge whatsoever. What is disturbing are reports that this matter, when brought to some light last year, was refferred to an "election" comittee run by the GOP and not a bi-partisan ethics comittee as it should have been. It is beyond political if anyone wanted to squash this story because they feared losing power.

Beyond that, big questions remain about exactly who knew what, and when. the house of representatives leadership is now on the hot seat over allegations that they knew at least of Foley's improper behavior with the pages for some time. I still don't know if that's true or not. I hope it is not. An investigation has been launched, and hopefully that investigation will be complete and fair. If house leaders did know of this, they have breached their trust with the pages and the American people. I don't know if their misdeeds warrant resignation from their seats, but surely resignation from their positions as leaders in the house should be revoked if not voluntarily given. It is essential that the GOP not do anything that even appears as tho they are covering anything up at this point or protecting leaders to save public face. Such a move could backfire hard.

THE most important thing here is the protection of the pages, just as all children need to be protected by our society as a whole. But secondly, it is vital that we find out exactly what has happened here, and if it was just some "improper emails" as White House spokesman Tony Snow would like us to believe. I have a feeling there's more. This is not a partisan or an election issue, it is an issue of principle.

It is sometimes funny when our leaders are exposed for not knowing what is going on. Pat Stevens is probably still trying to figure out how Foley sent all those messages thru those tubes. But nothing about this is funny, in fact , it's downright repugnant.




Comments (Page 2)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on Oct 04, 2006
on the radio they are talking about how, up to 11 years ago pages would warn new pages to avoid being alone with Mark Foley. EVEN THE PAGES KNEW, don't tell me Congressional Democrats didn't.

The stink of this is getting worse everyday. Nobody cared until they could make it a pathetic "october surprise".

Anyone who defends the Congressional Democrats in this "outrage" is just scummy.

Worse yet, apparently there are more Congressmembers the pages warn each other about.

Yes, Foley is scum, he is undefendable, but so are those who are glad he did it, just for their own political partisanship.

on Oct 04, 2006
No, don't tell anyone he's a predator, let him assault kids until exposing him works in our favor... yeah, that's the "leadership" you want taking over the House?

Vomit!
on Oct 04, 2006
baker and you are entirely missing my point here...we agree, foley is scum. i have not passed ANY judgement on anyone else. both the "hastert, boehner, reynolds must resign now" crowd and the "great left wing conspiracy theorists" are out of line in my opinion. i am neutral as far as all of them are concerned.

Anyone who defends the Congressional Democrats in this "outrage" is just scummy.

no, anyone who is condemming people before anything has been proven (and i exclude the fact that foley hasn't been convicted of anything because he has already admitted sending the im's and emails using alchoholism and the latest "i am a victm too" defense) is scummy here imho.

i think what is more important in this is finally blowing the lid off of this apparent sleaze going on with congress. i am not blaming any party for it and would appreciate it if you would save your judgement for somewhere else. i have hardly been "one sided" in this. i am being fair and non judgemental.

and tell me when this wouldn't have been perceived as political? and frankly, if someone was "holding " this bomb to be dropped at the right time, there were plenty of good opportunities in the past year or so. notably, after the gaff of the democratic challenger in the san diego election, that would have been ideal. during the breaking of the abramoff plea bargain would have been big. and there were others, that's just off the top of my head. the fact is, no matter when it was released, some would always claim it was a "political" move only.

i may speculate a bit, but damning people on any side of this outside of foley is just punditry of the same order that we have witnessed time and time again from all sides of the aisle at various times.

that's the bottom line and all ya'll are doing is picking a fight here...one that does not exist. actually, i think we agree on most points here, andthe most important one that says we should be protecting our children. why not use that common ground as a stepping stone instead of trying to paint me as something i'm not and arguing points that aren't even being discussed here?
on Oct 04, 2006
Sean, actually I wasn't directing that line towards you... I meant it as a general statement about the Democrats feigning "outrage" with what really is one.... on all sides.
on Oct 04, 2006
and on the "fake alchoholics" thing....a lil off topic but resports are surfacing about mel gibson being spotted drinking a budweiser in texas after leaving rehab last month. there are at least 2 eyewitnesses in austin that saw him on sept. 22 drinking at a party that had something to do with his new movie release.

the fake victim's defenses where everything is spun around backwards really make me sick.
on Oct 04, 2006
Sean, actually I wasn't directing that line towards you... I meant it as a general statement about the Democrats feigning "outrage" with what really is one.... on all sides.

granted...perhaps i misread. i'm not as sure if their outrage is "feigned" as i know a lot of very decent democrats who are really outraged by this. a lot of decent republicans too, just to be fair. i am aware that some on both sides will try to milk this or another story for all it's political worth, but i think most people are legitimately upset at these revelations. i think most people think this kind of stuff shouldn't even be an issue in the halls of congress. a lot of us may pin various labels on politicians we don't like, but child molestor or predator or anything like that probably isn't one of the one most of us would think of.

and like the catholic church scandals, i am for full disclosure and punishment of those involved. that isn't anti catholic of me, i was raised catholic, my wife was as well, and both my children are catholic. my son went to catholic school for 2 years till i found a better source of the education he needed (he is very advanced, and i ain't braggin). it is simply about fairness and justice.
on Oct 04, 2006
You know what, I had a long thing here but fek this. This is like talking to the Col. Once people are brainwashed by propaganda you can't deal with them. The dems set this up to come out now just so dupes would sit around and have conversations like this, never realizing that the politicians spewing the most outrage are the ones who MAKE WHAT FOLEY DID LEGAL.

Anyone really interested in "principles" would be looking into why it is legal to do what Foley did, and much worse, in D.C. Why Clinton pardoned people who did worse than Foley.


S.C. Just takes the political bait and will grumble "rhubarb" with the rest of the blind men right through the election. Instead of addressing the real problem, he'll just ponder about the GOP this and the GOP that, all the while thinking he isn't making it political. The Dems can count on this kind of blind response, so they exploit the already exploited to get a rise out of people like SC.

*snort* dupe.
on Oct 04, 2006
ALL things aside, what Foley did was wrong. I also think that EVERY person that had knowledge of this and for whatever reason NEVER said a word untill it was benefitial for them should also be asked to step down.


If it were your average Joe,this would not even be a issue.

Just because I did not pull the trigger does NOT mean I am NOT to blame for having knowledge of it and keeping my mouth shut.



on Oct 04, 2006
whatever baker...have a nice day:)
on Oct 04, 2006
"ALL things aside, what Foley did was wrong."


It's looking like one of the pages that Foley sent lurid IMs to was 18 at the time, can you be so sure? If it is proved that he didn't send anything untoward to anyone under 18, I will have to amend my blog and admit I was wrong.

I wonder if anyone else will...
on Oct 05, 2006
I've removed my articles that pre-assumed Foley's guilt now that it has been found that at least one of the pages at the time was 18. I would suggest everyone take a step back from the pyre we're roasting him on and wait and see what comes of it. Our stings are being pulled by those who want to effect the next election, because they know how strongly Americans react to the abuse of young people, and there is apparently a whole lot more to this than meets the eye.
on Oct 05, 2006
so what if 1 of the pages were 18? foley is old enough to be his GRANDFATHER...that doesn't disgust you? this issue has some legal questions, but beyond that, it's about morals. you seem to be desperately searching for a way to somehow pin this on the democrats and media instead of where the responsibility is.

because 1 page was 18 alledgedly foley is innocent? LMFAO!!!!!!!!!

are you forgetting that the 1st page was 16? and i could care less about dc's statutes and all that blabber....it's not about that, it's about principles, ethics and morals even more than the law.

do you really think all these pages were warned about an overzealous emailer or a potential predator for the 12 years foley served?

and much of this isn't about the crime (or alleged crime), it's about the cover-up and the surrounding ethical and moral decisions made by the congressional leaders who knew about it. .
on Oct 05, 2006
you removed your articles because you are embarrassed about your wrongness...the responsible thing to do would be to leave your words and update your article instead of hiding it.
on Oct 05, 2006
here's some things foley had to say on this subject himself:

"It's vile," said Rep. Mark Foley, R-West Palm Beach. "It's more sad than anything else, to see someone with such potential throw it all down the drain because of a sexual addiction." (speaking of Clinton)

That was "just sad," Foley said. "It's unbelievable that he could behave so carelessly in that setting." (referring to Clinton's behavior in the Oval Office)

"I have said repeatedly that in this country we track library books better than we do sex offenders." (yeah, well you got tracked down, Foley)

"Pointing fingers, trying to catch each other in scandal does not bring honor to this House." (this was earlier this year - knowing he was going to get caught eventually?)

"The Adam Walsh Act is the most comprehensive piece of child protection legislation this Congress has ever considered. The bill creates, among other things, new State and Federal regulations, community notification requirements, as well as new Federal criminal penalties for sex offenders." (he co-sponsored this and other laws under which he will most likely be charged)

In testimony before the House Judiciary Committee in 2005, Foley said: "Sex offenders are not petty criminals. They prey on our children like animals and will continue to do it unless stopped. We need to change the way we track these pedophiles. ... It has often been noted that a society can be judged on how it best treats it children. We have a moral responsibility to do everything in our power to protect our kids from these animals. This bill will turn the tables and make prey out of these predators. Failing to act on this measure is just playing Russian roulette with our children's lives." (what else is there to say?)

Legislating, he told National Public Radio on June 29, "is not necessarily just trying to brand people or create a scarlet letter or subject them to unnecessary ridicule, but it's really to set a bar and a standard by which they then decide, 'I better get help professionally,' 'I better go and see how I can deal with this problem,' or, 'I should absolutely avoid contact with young people in order to ensure I don't fall into this very serious problem.' " (great advice, if the person will take it . . .)

on Oct 05, 2006
of course, i guess it's easy to sit around and go after people who don't deserve it when you are too much of a coward to put your name on it. just another keyboard bully with an alias.
3 Pages1 2 3