Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

You all knew it was coming. Here's an article, if for some reason you don't know what's going on.

Now, before this discussion gets underway, I have to say, I'm really getting tired of people comparing Foley to Clinton.

Clinton scandal-Grown woman

Foley scandel-Underage boy

Which sounds worse to you?

_________________

I haven't heard anyone compare him to Clinton unless they're making the comparisson you just made.

He's a sick individual if the allegations are true. There's no place in congress for him, and props to the republicans for distancing themselves from him. His fallback to blaming it on alcohol was predictable, though.

Of course, it's worth noting that he's not the first congressman to be involved in this kinda thing, and you've gotta figure that, for every one we hear about, there's probably 3 or 4 more that we don't.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

Well, things just keep getting worse and worse the the republicans, eh? When I found out about this, my forst thought was "Our tax dollars at work." My second thought was then "And he's a freaking Congressman. I mean, of all the people, our elected officials are supposed to be the ones that we look up to, not be afraid of."

Though I did find this on Wikipedia. "Foley was chairman of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children, which introduced legislation targeting sexual predators and creating stricter guidelines for tracking them." Guess that came back at bit him in the rear, didn't it?

_________________

Oh, you don't get Mississippi newspapers...

_________________

Wha?!? They do that in Mississippi? Dids lives in Mississippi and my fiance is deployed to Gulfport/Biloxi.. I haven't heard any of them mention it (that doesn't mean they haven't).
I live next to Mississippi, and I haven't heard that. (once again, that doesn't mean anything, though.)

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

Well, there's another person to remove from my buddy list. They're dropping like flies.

From my point of view, every government official will resign from a scandal at some point.

_________________

Actually, despite the smear campaigns launched against the Republicans as a result of this are having little to no effect.
Either people are smart enough to see through BS of "Republicans molest children" or they figure it'd be like dropping a stink bomb into a septic tank.

This shouldn't negatively change anyone's views on the republican party. Leaders aren't defending him, they're having the same reaction his opponents have, and that's the reaction they should have. There is no excuse for the things he's accused of doing..

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

agreed, fully. i don't think that this is at ALL representative of the GOP, but rather of a sick, twisted person who happens to be a member of that party. my only problem with the entire thing is (besides Foley himself) that other people probably knew (like one congressman who reported some vague knowledge) and didn't do anything about it. if we find out later that the allegation that Hastert knew about it and tried to keep a lid on it, that would make me ill. i didn't like the guy anyway, but if that allegation is true (and it is only an allegation as of now) that is deeply unethical.

Maybe...or maybe anyone trying to help cover it up were only doing so because they knew that, even though it ISN'T representative of the GOP and shouldn't sway people's opinions of the party as a whole, there would be a lot of people jumping on their backs about it (as we've already seen since it became public knowledge). Maybe they were just trying to save face since they anticipated unnecessary criticism of the party at large for an isolated incident.

_________________
The meaning of life is 'bucket.'

FOR PONY!!!

There's a bipartisan investigation going on right now. We've been assured that everyone who was involved will be unemployed. We'll see if that happens, but I've got hope that we'll get to the bottom of this. If it turns out that there was a cover-up, then I'll be forced to question why. Having the cover blown a year ago would have been far less damaging to the republican party (although this series of emails should not be damaging to a party, ever).

I saw an attack ad yesterday referencing the event, saying "Mark Foley had inappropriate relationships with children. Aren't the Republicans always saying they are the moral party?"

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

yeah. this is nuts. i'm kinda lefty, but i dont think dems (who i do not always agree with) should be attacking THIS (but that's for another thread). foley's a screwy guy, but i really would not be able to accept a cover up for any reason should that be proved to be true. saving face or not, it becomes an issue of breaking the law and trying to hide that, which isn't cool in my book.

unfortunately, parties sometimes take the blow for individuals idiotic actions. My roomate still busts on me for being a registered Dem (in connecticut, you can't vote in primaries as an independent, and i likes my votin') because of Ted Kennedy, who effed up really horribly. My point in all of this is that nobody in any party ever asks for people to ruin their reputation, and i'm pretty sure that people are going to be tired of hearing about foley pretty soon and the Dems will be in trouble if they harp on it too much.

Just read this AP article on "the first openly gay Congressman" Gerry Studds, who died yesterday.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061014/ap_ ... bit_studds


Only passing attention is paid, later in the article, to the fact that (a) Studds did what Foley didn't- had sex with an underage teenage Congressional page (and took him on a trip to Europe!) and (b) that he was censured by Congress.

The AP writer then packages it, as much as possible, in Studds on justification- that it was a consensual relationship with a "young adult" and an "error in judgement". It notes that the violated teen later appeared in support of Studds as if to suggest "it's not all that bad if your victim likes you."

The hypocrisy in this thing makes me laugh. Here you have a guy who not only had naughty conversations, but actually sodomized a teen page. Then he goes home, gets chastised by the House and returns for another 6 terms.

Amazing.

_________________

One major difference between the Foley situation and 1983 scandal is there was no evidence of any Congressional coverup on behalf of either Representatives Crane or Studds. That idea that Foley was carrying on like he was with the apparent knowledge (and, by implication, consent) of party leaders is the crux of the issue.

Another issue is the somewhat confusing crossover between age of consent laws on the state and federal levels. Age of consent is a state matter, so each state (as well as the District of Columbia) is allowed to set its laws individually. The majority of states set consent at 16, as does D.C. Federal age of consent laws are mostly focused on interstate communication with and trafficking of victims, and the benchmark age there is 18. Therefore, while a 16 year old in a given state may be legal, it is typically illegal to attempt to use email or IM's or what have you to try to coerce someone under 18 for sex.

Hence, neither Gerry Studds nor Dan Crane were guilty of any crime (and they were investigated), but Mark Foley may have committed a felony at the federal level. An odd discrepancy to be sure, but part of the price we pay for living in a federal republic. In any event, this is one reason why you should watch how you speak to people online.

Mike

_________________
Logical fallacies ahoy! I'd also like to say: graaaaagh!

There's no real proof of a cover-up here, either. Of course, there ARE allegations, but that's why we're getting an investigation into it. I think the reason why Foley is "bad" but Studds and Crane aren't is incredibly stupid. A grown man having sex with a 16 year old (male or female) is disgusting. The idea of the law making Foley more guilty of wrongdoing than them is like giving a guy that murders 2 people probation while giving the chair to someone you find guilty of attempted murder.
Of course, the law is the law..

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

At best (that is with guilt), only the few leaders who are allegedly guilty of coverup (like Hasert whose Chief of Staff claims to have informed him of Foley over three years ago) deserve the defamity resulting from this scandal, but deservedly or not, the entire Republican party is taking heat.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/
Before Foley, they were set to absorb serious loses, but still maintain slim majoritys in the house and senate. After him, they lost the house count by 6 seats, and they relinquished their senate lead. After him, North Korea, and the abramoff house convinction, they are now set to reside under a 21 seat democratic house majority, and a plausible 50-50, or 51-49 status quo in the senate, even though the third of the senate contested this year, comes from the last election in which democrats did well in the senate.

StrongRad:
Actually, despite the smear campaigns launched against the Republicans as a result of this are having little to no effect.

The polls in the site I just cited assert differently. Where are you getting your information from?

Granted, the majority of America hasn't been moved by this scandal, but in close races it doesnt take very many to make all the difference.

This shouldn't negatively change anyone's views on the republican party. Leaders aren't defending him, they're having the same reaction his opponents have, and that's the reaction they should have.

Most Republicans getting kicked down in the polls for this have nothing to do with it, which is unfair.

That having been said, the party has been implicated a lot in the past two years; a lot more then the democrats have.

We've seen Tom Delay, Cunningham, Foley, and this new scandal with the Representitive abramoff bribed on the Republican side, and on the Democratic side, all I can think of is Williams. Given all this, it goes to figure people are viewing the neo-Republican as having a tendency towards corruption.

Having the cover blown a year ago would have been far less damaging to the republican party (although this series of emails should not be damaging to a party, ever).

We'll the chief of staff claims to have informed Hasert three years ago. Maybe he was afraid of hurting 2004 for his party?

Though it would go to figure that he would then expose Foley a few months after the election, which he didn't.

If guilty of knowledge, he probably hoped he could have kept things underwraps until Foley retired.

It should be noted, that even if the chief of staff is being honest, Hasert didn' know about anything explicit. He was only aware of questionable things which one might argue should not have been enough to have set off warning bells.

lahimatoa:
The AP writer then packages it, as much as possible, in Studds on justification- that it was a consensual relationship with a "young adult" and an "error in judgement". It notes that the violated teen later appeared in support of Studds as if to suggest "it's not all that bad if your victim likes you."

One page has claimed he had sex with Foley, though he disclosed this under the condition of anoynmity. If he's being, then Foley bested (if the page wasn't gay and consensual) Studd, though the GOP didn't know about the alleged sex when they forced the resignation, so your example still stands as showing the 80s Democratic leaders being more negligent then our current Republican ones.

Different polls. I believe I was getting that from CNN or USA Today. Of course, as we've seen, polls can mean very little if the people answering the polls can't be bothered to actually vote.

When you're in charge of everything, you're in the spotlight. Everything you do makes the front pages. I'm sure that, when the democrats grab control, we'll hear of everything they do wrong, too.

That's one of the reasons that I feel a cover-up wasn't involved. The republicans were at a relative maximum at that point. Scandal then wouldn't have meant as much as letting it slip during a campaign year.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

i super duper agree. of course, the coverage changes in different sources, but stuff like the Daily show gets hammered for ripping on Republicans more than Democrats, bt i think its much funnier to make fun of people in power than it is to make fun of people with no control over any part of the gov't right now. if the house or senate shift this midterm, then there will be a lot of attention on the actions of democrats.

Different polls. I believe I was getting that from CNN or USA Today. Of course, as we've seen, polls can mean very little if the people answering the polls can't be bothered to actually vote.

Electoral vote only takes polls which exclusively count "Likely voters". Modern polling techniques are more complicated then simply surveying 300 people, and saying if 150 say this, then 50% of the populace says this. Despite that, they pretty much are accurate within their 3 to 4% margin of error, and have been proven so. Of course many elections are currently counted as close enough, that margin counted, they have no defenitive winner.

When you're in charge of everything, you're in the spotlight. Everything you do makes the front pages.

When your in charge you get blamed for everything national, but not disproportionally for everything personal. The aformentioned Williams was in the headlines (of google news) for days if I recall.

Possible explanations for the high number of Republican scandals this year are realitively innocent; the people in the power are going to be the most sought after and thereby the most tempted. The people in power have slightly more people in congress, and the larger a pyramids base, the larger it is going to be at any given height.

Accusations of a culture of corruption can probably be easily lambasted with citations of the Clinton era, though would such citations mostly be centered around Bill, or would they include his parties portion of the congress. Honestly, I don't consider myself to have been intelligent and knowledge soaking for more then the past two years, so i'm fairly ignorant what transpired back then. I can't say of much of any scandals between 2000-2004, though perhaps thats because they were blips (like Cunningham) and/or they were hazed out by the 9/11 inspired media daze.

Really, when I think of corruption, I think of things like the inefficient and wasteful contracting practices being excersized in Iraq and New Orleans. However nothing has come out about people being bribed for that (though the VP used to be Halliburton's CEO).

That's one of the reasons that I feel a cover-up wasn't involved. The republicans were at a relative maximum at that point. Scandal then wouldn't have meant as much as letting it slip during a campaign year.

Bush won the national popular vote by a substantal margin, but things were pretty close in Ohio. Who knows, Foley could have tipped the balance, though without charges dogging Hasert like they are now, I doubt he could have stayed in the headlines all that long.

Like I said before, its plausible Hasert thought he could keep Foley underwraps indefenitely.

Basically in trying to predict what will ultimately be found out by the ongoing investigation, we've two people, one of whom is lieing. Hasert's motive for lieing is obvious (he wants to aviod defamation), his chief of staff's motive isn't. However, even if lieing, Hasert was only told of some questionable non-explicit emails.