Child Predators: Silence on the Religious Right

One of the reasons that it's hard to make a story like predator Mark Foley and the House Republican cover-up stick is because there's no pre-set narrative that Republican leaders are very bad people.  Republican leaders are creepy, weird, and perverted, seeking an authoritarian political system so that they don't have to deal with personal demons.  

The religious right isn't religious, it is politically authoritarian.  It is a movement of morally and ethically corrupted individuals who refuse to tell the difference between right and wrong.

Faithful Democrats shows just how bad these people are:

Claiming to be a man of deep Catholic faith, Foley hasn't shied away from proclaiming his rectitude.  "At Sacred Heart, I was taught how to be a better citizen because of their focus on discipline and moral values," he said, referring to the school he attended in Lake Worth, Florida.

Foley also received an 84% approval rating from the Christian Coalition in 2004, the most recent year we could find spur of the moment.

Indeed, Foley made get-tough laws on sexually exploited children -- particularly exploitation over the Internet -- one of his primary crusades in Congress.  He was even Co-Chair of the Missing and Exploited Children Caucus.

He also introduced a bill to ban online "child modeling" sites, claiming they are "nothing more than a fix for pedophiles."

"They don't sell products, they don't sell services," he said.  "All they serve are young children on a platter for America's most depraved. These sites sell child erotica and they should be banned."

On Bill O'Reilly's show this May, he said, "Our kids are precious. Their lives are vulnerable. The predators are winning as we speak."

Rarely has there been a clearer case of the kind of religious hypocrisy that Jesus condemned so passionately in the Gospels.

Foley rails against the depraved; he is the depraved.  Foley attacks the predators; he is a predator.

Our question: where are the denunciations from the religious right?  Where is Focus on the Family?  Where is the Family Research Council?  Do they only care about sexual misconduct when it's committed by a Democrat?  The hypocrisy doesn't belong to Foley alone.  The hypocrisy belongs to everyone who rails against sexual sin for political purposes then delivers a sermon of silence when the sinner happens to advance a right-wing, Republican agenda.

The Republican leadership is a group of psychotic Office Space type banal tyrants, and the right-wing media chamber is composed mostly of decrepit greed-driven whiny losers who follow them.  That's why they can't make this country work.  They are immoral, and they bring immorality and corruption everywhere they go.

I know there's a lot of bitterness out there about torture, and unlike Chris, I'm not really mollified with 75% of Democrats voting against torture.  They should have spoken out early and often, and they did not.  But at the end of the day, I'm not fighting for these Democrats, the ones in the House and Senate.  These are followers, not leaders.  We are the leaders.  The Democratic Party is millions of people around the country, millions who don't like our direction, and it is up to us to change the direction of the country and the party.  We can do it.  We can support great candidates who are willing to call out the right-wing moral perversion that is sweeping across our country, who will show that it is as much Dennis Hastert and Fox News as it is Mark Foley responsible for preying on children.  We will end the perpetuation and enabling of evil by these very bad men.

UPDATE:  As I was writing, Chris Carney demanded that his creepy and morally perverse opponent Don Sherwood cancel his upcoming fundraisers with John Boehner and Dennis Hastert.

Tags: Faithful Democrats (all tags)

Comments

45 Comments

Re: Child Predators: Silence on the Religious Righ

1) Where's Mike Stark?  He can get his Torts notes from someone else.  Mike and some other people who are good at slipping the screeners need to call Dobson's show this week and put this question to him directly.  Hannity and O'Reilly as well.  Get them all defending this for the next week at least.  Flood them with calls and make it a big story.  

2) I think this is probably clear as of Josh's post last night, but this isn't a Foley story anymore.  The question now is what the fuck were Hastert and the GOP leadership thinking?  Who knew and when?  Demand hearings.  Right now, absent exculpatory evidence they are no different than the Catholic bishops that hid their perverted priests (and what evidence could be mustered to defend them really?).  If we use this correctly--and I have to think that the Chris Matthews, and probably even O'Reilly will spend time with this whether they want to or not--it could be the knock out.  Get Catholic Dems on TV to talk about how we felt when they heard what had happened with the Priest scandal.  Make that connection as explicit as possible.  Sad as it is, the media will do back flips for this story before they'll ever say anything about how it could be bad to have torture as the official policy of this country.  

by msbatxnyc 2006-09-30 10:39AM | 0 recs
Yup, as a survivor of clergy assault

This parallels the catholic church crisis exactly in terms of coverup and denial.  That point needs to be hammered home all the time.

And if it was dems I'd be just as pissed and outraged.

by northcountry 2006-09-30 06:52PM | 0 recs
If the people lead, the leaders will follow

What you said, Matt. This is a great post.

by lambert 2006-09-30 11:01AM | 0 recs
Narrative Is So Important!

The importance of narratives and identity fabrication cannot be underestimated, which is why I am very pleased to see this at the beginning of this post:

One of the reasons that it's hard to make a story like predator Mark Foley and the House Republican cover-up stick is because there's no pre-set narrative that Republican leaders are very bad people.
This is what we get for forgetting Harry Truman's deal:  "We'll stop telling the truth about them when they stop lying about us."

But the reasons for this failure go deep into the very nature of liberalism and conservatism, which is why Truman's deal is so readily forgotten. Conservatives have no inherent capacity to think in terms of systemic causes.  It is really hard for them to grasp that bad things can happen in the world except as the conscious and intentional result of evil acts by evil people.  OTOH, liberals are quite aware that "the path to hell is paved with good intentions," and that the really hard moral choices are not between good and evil, but between competing goods.

Indeed, liberals are overly inclined to see the good in conservatives, and to restrain themselves from decrying the flaws (even I have a hard time calling it "evil").  Indeed, most conservatives are not evil.  In fact, they generally agree more with liberal ideology than they do with conservative ideology, when it comes down to brass tacks.  Which is why their leadership has to lie to them so much--not just about details, such as the reasons for going to war with Iraq, but about the very nature of liberals and liberalism.

The problem, in a nutshell, is that ordinary everyday conservatives identify with a leadership that is reactionary, rather than conservative, that deceives them constantly on multiple levels, and that is deeply amoral and immoral.  In the long run, understanding how  identification is formed and maintained, and what can be done to break it is going to be job #1 if we ever want to return our country to reality-based politics.

by Paul Rosenberg 2006-09-30 11:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Child Predators: Silence on the Religious Righ

Anyone ask yet if he sent these emails on a government computer? Maybe its time to restore honesty adn dignity to Congress?

by desmoulins 2006-09-30 11:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Child Predators

I feel this issue painfully because I know something about sex offenders, pedophiles, and child predators. I worked at a men's prison and once heard a sex offender complain that he wasn't allowed visits with his children. "Hey - they weren't my victims!" He felt no guilt. He didn't get it, just like most child predators don't get what is so wrong. This is why they are seldom "cured." It's a lifestyle thing to them, not a cruelty to children. Often they have a favorite age of boy or girl, or a favored act, not always involving sexual touching. Sometimes they get off from telling dirty jokes to children. They don't feel guilty, they feel superior to really bad pedophiles.

How is it that the Republican leaders who were informed don't get this?  Why don't they get it even now? A child predator is a person without conscience, a sociopath, a deeply flawed human being.  

It is not unusual for child predators to join organizations where there is easy access to children and youth. They can be found in foster care, in step-parenting, in church groups and Scouting, wherever there are children who are likely to trust them, and parents willing  to permit that trust. Congressman Foley's positions of trust for children and youth and their parents is a natural step for a child predator who has no compunction about lying. His whole life is a lie.  How could the Republicans who found out not see that this man among them was deeply flawed?  

I'm guessing that Foley isn't actually gay so that he can fall in love with other male peers. Pedophilia is not same-sex love that accidently got the age wrong.  It's a distortion, a fetish, a mental block, a mental sickness, very wrong and taboo for an adult to be attracted by a child or youth of either gender. It's extremely damaging to the child and the parents. Sometimes the damage lasts a lifetime.

I'm shocked that Republican leaders knew and did nothing. No banishing?  No proper disgust at learning of a broken taboo?  Ew.

WHO KNEW:
House Speaker Dennis Hastert
Rep. John Shimkus, R-Ill.
Rep. Thomas Reynolds, R-N.Y
Rep. Rodney Alexander, R-La.
Rep. John Boehner, R

WHO ELSE?

by mrobinsong 2006-09-30 11:30AM | 0 recs
Morality and 16 year olds...

Anyone ask yet if he sent these emails on a government computer? Maybe its time to restore honesty adn dignity to Congress?

He sent them from his personal AOL account "Maf54" (heh)

by delmoi 2006-09-30 11:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Morality and 16 year olds...
Personal account, sure, but from what computer? Remember all the hullabaloo around Al Gore and which phone line he used for literally a few campaign phone calls? (And that's all kabuki, as we see from the Republican "transactional lobbying".) I don't like my tax dollars paying for torture, but I'm also not fond of them paying for this guy to solicit teenagers.
by jsw 2006-09-30 12:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Morality and 16 year olds...

Someone should set up a Dateline-like sting and chat with him on AOL Instant Messenger.

by Ament Stone of California 2006-09-30 02:44PM | 0 recs
Smart move by Carney

Although if Sherwood is a supporter of family values, he shouldn't have any fundraisers with himself either.  

by bosdcla14 2006-09-30 11:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Child Predators: Silence on the Religious Righ

Just to be sure we're on the same page here, whatever this guy's problems & offenses, government getting tough on child predatation & stricter enforcement on "child model" sites is a good thing no? Whether lobbying for stricter action against child porn is made hypocritical by him being a child predator, stricter action against child porn is still good.

by Epitome22 2006-09-30 11:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Silence

I'm not really mollified with 75% of Democrats voting against torture.

Thanks for giving that point front page status. There's been an effort on the part of some to excuse and sweep the torture vote betrayal by the "usual suspects," or rather, the "dirty dozens" under the rug as quickly as possible.

by Sitkah 2006-09-30 11:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Child Predators:

It is illegal to produce, sell, collect, advertise or in any way  possess child pornography because child abuse is involved in producing it. [I don't know about cartoons]. Child pornography is an exception to freedom of speech rights because it involves the crime of sex abuse.

by mrobinsong 2006-09-30 11:49AM | 0 recs
Too far, back up.

I think you are over the line here.  

How about we get some facts about this case before we decide that the entire GOP House leadership are a bunch of vampires?  At most we have some serious non-feasance on the part of GOP leaders.  That's plenty without acting like we're rounding up the last members of the SS.

by takhallus 2006-09-30 11:52AM | 0 recs
Concern Troll, Much?

Been here just over a week.  No diaries. Check out his second comment on the diary "Adwatch: DSCC Goes Negative in Montana":

I think this ad will prove to be ineffective.  People in Montana know what he's said, they either care or they don't, and this ad comes off as kind of a cheap late hit.< /concern>

Ya think?

Or maybe just a DLCer?

Hard to tell the difference, really.

by Paul Rosenberg 2006-09-30 01:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Too far, back up.

What are you talking about?  The Repub leadership knew what was going on and admitted it convened the Page Board without notifying the Dem representative.  I am a former House staffer and I can tell you that is not normal operating procedure.  I have a pretty good idea of how this situation should have been handled once it was brought to the leadership's attention and this is not it.

The Repub leadership has a responsibility as the guardians of the pages (remember these are high school students) to address any inappropriate behavior from any member.  Instead, they didn't follow normal procedure, did not turn the matter over to the ethics, didn't inform the Dems (they get to name pages as well).  Basically they did nothing but try to hide it.  And you don't think this deserves an investigation or that someone's head should roll.  Unbelievable!

by John Mills 2006-09-30 01:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Too far, back up.

Did I say it didn't deserve an investigation?  Did I say heads shouldn't roll?  I don't want to miss the killing shot by being too eager.  You take your time, you line up the sights, you squeeze the trigger when the time is right.

When your enemy is digging a hole don't take away his shovel.  Don't turn this into a Democrat thing.  Right now it's a lovely, lovely GOP implosion.  So you prod the media, you voice deep concern, you wonder aloud about the integrity of the system,  but you don't make yourself the story by getting too far out front and screaming about all Republicans being evil.  You get too far out front on this and you turn something perfect into something the media can start dismissing as "partisanship."

As for the ninny above suggesting I'm a troll because I don't always agree with the efficacy of every single ad, let me point something out junior:  knife fighting isn't about thumping your chest and enjoying your own rage.  You have to wait and watch and stick the blade where it will kill, and not where the blade will be turned aside.  Emotion isn't the point.  Winning is the point.  

Yes, we need a narrative structure.  Yes, anger is our signature emotion this year -- a big improvement over guilt.  But the storyline has to be credible to be effective.  Denny Hastert as Satan? Nah.  Denny Hastert as corrupted by power and indifferent to anything but holding onto that power?  That works.

by takhallus 2006-09-30 04:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Too far, back up.

I completely disagree.  I am not one of the people here who is overly partisan or who calls for heads often.  However, this is, by its very nature, partisan because the Repubs run the House and they covered it up to protect one of their own.  This is not Jeanine Pirro (the Repub candidate for NY AG) who was trying to spy on her husband who was cheating on her.  That was a personal matter and you stay out of it.  

This is about the management of the House and abdication of important responsibilities that go with the job.  In 1994, the Repubs pounded the Dems for every transgression in running the House be it large or small.  I see no reason to approach this incident in any other manner.  The American public is not especially sympathetic to child preditors.  This as a no lose for the Dems.

by John Mills 2006-09-30 04:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Too far, back up.

Here's how I play this if I'm Hastert and the Dems have stepped up the volume:

"We've turned this over the the ethics committee.  As soon as we knew the seriousness of this matter, we turned it over to the ethics committe and accepted Mr. Foley's resignation from this House.  That the Democrats would attempt to exploit this tragic situation for narrow partisan advantage is of course no surprise."

And then out come the surrogates to say, "There's a thin line between a 16 year old page and a 22 year old intern.  The difference is that Mr. Foley has been banished from the Republican party and Mr. Clinton is still revered by Democrats."

Then comes the news reports:  "What began as a crisis of the House leadesrhip has now devolved into a partisan squabble with Democrats meaneuvering for advantage in this election year."

Then come the pundits:  "Democrats seeking to take advantage of this mess may now be facing a backlash."

That's why you don't get out in front.  You don't make a beautiful story about Republicans into a story about Democrats.
It's all about them.  Let it be about them.

What Dems should do at the blog level is keep busy working at the cracks and crevices of the story.  Work the details.  Make sure the MSM gets that info.  The facts are our strength now, not overeager  bloodlust.

This is a gift from God, don't fuck it up by drawing the spotlight off them and onto us.

by takhallus 2006-09-30 05:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Too far, back up.

"There's a thin line between a 16 year old page and a 22 year old intern."

Huh?   I don't follow this logic at all.  There is a big difference b/w a 22 year old adult with a college degree and a 16 year old high school student/Congressional page.  Most 22 year olds have jobs and many live on their own paying their own bills.  I don't know many 16 year olds who do that.  THere is no thin line b/w the two either legally or realistically.  Even Denny Hastert knows that.

If this is the best argument the Repubs can come up with, bring it on.

by John Mills 2006-09-30 07:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Too far, back up.

The age of consent in DC is 16.

Both relationships involved an asymetric abuse of power -- powerful men, subordinate youth.  And as far as we know there was no actual sex, just emails.  (Although I expect further developments on that front.)

But you know what?  There's no point arguing about it.  You guys all want to posture and rant.  I want to win.  Incompatible world views.

by takhallus 2006-10-01 03:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Too far, back up.

At most we have some serious non-feasance on the part of GOP leader

If I get cuaght for failure to report a crime, I get to go to jail. What do you think the punishment should be the the House GOP leadership who let a sexual predator run free for a year?

by Sitkah 2006-09-30 07:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Child Predators: Silence on the Religious Righ

GOP = Grotesque Old Perverts

by KernBlue 2006-09-30 11:56AM | 0 recs
Speaking of Rodney Alexander

Here's a short article mentioning his opponent for November.

Calling the incumbent, Rodney Alexander, R-Quitman, "Rodney Robot," Hearn, 72, was especially critical of Alexander's votes with President Bush on Iraq.

"Folks, we must stop pouring an endless amount of money on the war in Iraq. We need to get our troops home in a timely way and take care of business at home.
"We need to take care of our children, our seniors, our veterans, health care, Social Security, our borders, our ports, our environment, our handicapped."

She said the No. 1 issue is the war in Iraq, and the No. 2 issue is the deficit.

Hearn said she was a long shot against the incumbent, but, drawing on biblical references, she said, "Well, a lot of skeptics thought David was nuts for taking on Goliath. ... You know the end result that David was victorious over Goliath."

Hearn's daughter, Gail Smith of Birmingham, Ala., said of her mother, "She has all her life taken on big challenges and big risks."

Helen Moore, a supporter, said Hearn "is a person of honesty and integrity."

Source

Can someone send a messege though the grapevine to Mrs. Hearn to see if she could also benefit from the fact that Alexander heard about a crime, and first notified the Campaign Commitee chairman (Reynolds), instead of the cops or the House Page Board?

by RBH 2006-09-30 12:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Child Predators: Silence on the Religious Righ

How about we get some facts about this case before we decide that the entire GOP House leadership are a bunch of vampires?  At most we have some serious non-feasance on the part of GOP leaders.

Foley is a pitiful creature driven by inner demons.  He had only limited ability to help himself.  

Those covering for him are worse as I see it.

Best,  Terry

by terryhallinan 2006-09-30 12:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Child Predators: Silence on the Religious Righ

I'd like to comment about this idea that Foley "is a pitiful creature driven by demons."

In my opinion, he's a predator, looking for a target. His emails don't sound like he's at all upset. He's not struggling with his inner voices. He's looking for a vulnerable kid to prey upon.

You don't get to be a U.S. Senator if you're a pansy.

He knew what he was doing, and he was having fun doing it.

Pissed off.

by PissedOff 2006-10-01 03:10PM | 0 recs
A meta-question for you

Matt,

I've got a question for you. You strike me as one of the more passionate, fired-up, pissed-off left-wing bloggers these days, who at the same time doesn't appear to have let himself succumb to bitterness, despair and disillusion, verging on defeatism. I find this very refreshing, this combination of anger, passion and (cautious and realistic, of course) optimism.

I point this out because such a combination of qualities seems to me to be quite rare these days in the left-wing blogosphere. To quote the inevitable Yeats:

The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Sadly, I find this to be verified in much of the left-wing blogosphere these days. That is, many of the most passionate (and, I believe, generally well-meaning) bloggers seem to believe that all is lost, that BusCo have essentially won, that there's little to nothing that we can do about it, and that before things get better, they're going to have to first get much, much worse. I.e. full-blown fascism that ultimately self-destructs of its own incompetence, evil and corruption, but only having first made millions to suffer needlessly and horribly for it.

They cite this week's shameful detainee bill as just the latest and worst indication of this. And when someone points out that SCOTUS or a Dem-led congress will surely reverse this, they just laugh at their naivite and say that none of this will happen or matter, that Diebold will probably take care of maintaining their majority, that BushCo have consolidated all power in themselves, that they can and will ignore SCOTUS and a Dem-controlled congress (assuming there ever is one, which they doubt), etc., and most of all there's NOTHING that we an do about it.

One prominent blogger of this pursuasion who comes to mind is Digby, who while I generally find his analyses to be right on the mark, his predictions I find to be incredibly and excessively dour and pessimistic--and not, in my opinion, at all necessarily realistic. But there are many, many others, and of course commenters on other peoples' blogs, who seem to be equally pessimistic and defeatist.

My question is this. Your outlook doesn't strike me as being anywhere near this bleak, let alone defeatist, even though you seem to share these more pessimistic bloggers' anger and frustration, and are clearly a smart and sober observer and analyzer of current political events with no part of your head in the sand or up your--well, you know what. Am I right about this, and if so, what explains your continued optimism, however cautious and realistic (which I happen to fully share), and what, if anything, do you have to say about these other, far more pessimistic bloggers? Are they simply giving up, taking the easy way out, being cowardly, and perhaps, in some case, just concern trolls trying to bring the rest of us down? Or do they have a valid point, and do you simply choose to not share it?

Just wondering, as all this doom and gloom I keep coming across in the left-wing blogosphere is just pissing me off, and I don't know what to do with or about it.

If you can spare a moment to respond, I'd really appreciate it. If not, I understand, as there are clearly more pressing matters to attend to with the election less than 6 weeks away. But I think that this is an important and overlooked issue confronting the left-wing blogosphere and progressive movement, because this sort of defeatism, if unchecked and unanswered, can become cancerous, and deadly, at precisely the moment when we're on the verge of making some real progress.

And, whether they mean to or not (and I believe that most don't, but that some likely do), I believe that these defeatists (my term, perhaps not yours or others) can do us and our cause a lot of damage, perhaps fatal (a prediction, I realize, that itself must sound defeatist, but I believe that if countered, this need not happen, so I view it more as cautious than defeatist).

by kovie 2006-09-30 12:20PM | 0 recs
MSNBC - Foley Story has Lewinski Photo

Yeah. That's right. The story on the resignation of Republican Rep. Mark Foley on the MSNBC website has a photo halfway down of Monica Lewinsky. The photo is contained in a box labeled "Past Poltical Scandals"

I'd guess it's there for fairness and balance so that no one gets the idea that only Republicans should be condemned for sex crimes. The fact that Clinton was dallying with a fully consenting adult in contrast to a minor in Foley's case probably didn't factor into the editorial decision.

False equivalency is one of the primary defenses the Republicans always choose to deflect attention from their scandals and errors. Hey, Clinton had sex with an underling didn't he? Add in a little gay-bashing to distract attention further from the complicity of the Republican leadership and you've got the makings of a fog that will confuse people as to who they should blame. After all, if the Democrats weren't so soft on gays this probably never would have happened right?

I agree with many of the opinions I've read across the left blogosphere that this may be a crippling scandal for the GOP. However, as shown by MSNBC, the media just can't seem to stick to the story in front of their face and will be all too happy to drag Clinton's name through the mud along with Foley. To deliver a knockout blow Democrats must aggressively push to control the narrative.

by Curt Matlock 2006-09-30 12:28PM | 0 recs
Bill Clinton Made Him Do It!

It's the fair and balanced thing to do, don'tcha know!

by Paul Rosenberg 2006-09-30 01:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Child Predators: Silence

"Just to be sure we're on the same page here, whatever this guy's problems & offenses, government getting tough on child predation & stricter enforcement on "child model" sites is a good thing no?"

I think child model sites and child cartoon pornography with no models are iffy issues. The law against child pornography that allows the exception to the First Amendment rights is based on a crime being committed to produce the pornography. The crime trumps the speech. For cartoons, no children, no crime.

For child models, this is the issue from the other end: Is the viewing a crime? Some towns try to pass ordinances against the public breast feeding of infants in order to "protect the children" who may be viewers. Oops. Wrong headed. I remember when the naked child model was an issue during the same (hippy) era. Some argued that viewing a naked infant, toddler or child would "cause" pedophilia, or should be shocking to the rest of us for some reason. So, people who carried pictures of naked infants could be carrying proof of pedophilia inclinations in their wallets.

Sexual offender prison units have provided a lot more social science these days. Oh, I forgot. Republicans don't trust science. They can't recognize a sociopath if they fall over one.

by mrobinsong 2006-09-30 12:48PM | 0 recs
Press Eats This Stuff Up

"One of the reasons that it's hard to make a story like predator Mark Foley and the House Republican cover-up stick is because there's no pre-set narrative that Republican leaders are very bad people."

I don't think this story is going away.  It has all the elements the press loves.  I think the Repub leadership is in deep, deep trouble on this one.

by John Mills 2006-09-30 01:11PM | 0 recs
Another victim of Priestiality?

Anyone want to bet that Foley wasn't molested by one or more of the priests at Sacred Heart?  Seriously, the vast majority of adults who commit sexual offenses against children were victims of such offenses themselves, and it would also explain his crusade against the sexual exploitation of children.  And of course, as we now know, Catholic schools in this country and around the world have long been hotbeds of child sexual abuse.  I don't think Foley is a sociopath, I think he's another damaged survivor of priestiality, trying to fight his own demons by crusading for stronger laws to protect children while giving in to them in secret.  By my lights, that makes the House leaders who cynically covered up for him far, far worse than he is.

by Alex 2006-09-30 01:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Another victim of Priestiality?

He's probabalt both.

by northcountry 2006-09-30 07:00PM | 0 recs
Which Republicans protected a child predator?

My duplicate post from Chris Bowers converation, below. Let's work on using the story.

[Re: Republican Leadership Begins Foley Cover Up]

The cover-up story just needs volume, and we know how to do that. Every single American knows that sexual content between adult and child is taboo whatever the context. Taboo. You don't even have to say why it's wrong because as taboo everyone agrees. Also, no one really wants to talk about taboo acts.Tough. Let's talk about it. Up the volume. The story is the cover-up and which Republicans chose to protect a child predator.

WHICH REPUBLICANS PROTECTED A CHILD PREDATOR?

Roll Call says "at least four Republican House Members, one senior GOP aide and a former top officer of the House were aware of the allegations about Foley that prompted the initial reporting regarding his e-mail contacts with a 16-year-old House page. They include: Majority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio), National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Tom Reynolds (N.Y.) and Reps. Rodney Alexander (R-La.) and John Shimkus (R-Ill.), as well as a senior aide to Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) and former Clerk of the House Jeff Trandahl."

by mrobinsong on Sat Sep 30, 2006 at 03:19:39 PM PDT
[ Reply to This ]

by mrobinsong 2006-09-30 01:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Silence on the Religious Right

In case anybody doesn't know about this Web site yet, pass it around:

www.armchairsubversive.com

by Bush Bites 2006-09-30 01:49PM | 0 recs
Hmmm

unlike Chris, I'm not really mollified with 75% of Democrats voting against torture
Matt, aren't you being unfair to Chris here? I don't particularly recall him saying he was "mollified" with the result of the torture vote, and I'm quite sure he'd be just as willing as anyone else to support progressive primary challengers against those pro-torture dems.

by taylormattd 2006-09-30 01:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Child Predators: Silence on the Religious Righ

Actually, there is a pre-set narrative.  It's the Elmer Gantry narrative and it's as old as Evangelism.  You know, the hyprocritical horny preacher.  Think of the preacher in Grapes of Wrath, or Burt Lancaster as Elmer Gantry himself.  Then there's Jimmy Swaggart, Jim and Tammy Baker (hypocrites, not sexual predators).  Come on folks, time to stroke up the old hypocritical preacher narrative.

by kaleidescope 2006-09-30 03:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Child Predators a Republican Specialty
In all honesty I wonder where some of the 'folks' on this thread live....

Read this:The Party of Pederasts

And then quiet bleating about who, what and when. It's been a Republican specialty. It's part of the 'Daddy' Party's genetic code. You 'love' your children.

As to 'hearings' etc. Congress just adjourned a week early and won't be back until after the election.

Quite the coincidence ain't it?

The only 'folks' who can give this story 'legs' is us. The Blogosphere. So quit waiting for the cavalry to ride over the ridge.

We are the cavalry.

Write your local papers, every one within a hundred mile radius, and hammer on this story.
Write your Congressperson and make clear to them that if they don't take a position against the sexual predation of Senate pages by Republicans that you will support their opponent the next time they run for office.

Drive the Republicans into the Sea!
by Pericles 2006-09-30 04:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Too far, back up.

By all means study the Clinton impeachment:   they overeached, they lost the House, Clinton left office with polls in the 60's.  Don't draw the wrong lesson from that.

I don't give  a damn about honorable, or moral high ground, I'm saying don't be Henry Hyde, be smart.

by takhallus 2006-09-30 06:06PM | 0 recs
Very well said Matt

You're right we are the leaders.  We are responsible for raising up leaders with integrity and for taking back America from the psychopaths and predators.  

We need leaders who have suffered the ups and downs of life, heartbreak and triumph.  Leaders who know what it takes to put your life back together.

Here's two in Minnesota:

Wendy Wilde

Patti Wetterling

by northcountry 2006-09-30 06:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Too far, back up.

Lucas - Well said.

by John Mills 2006-09-30 07:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Too far, back up.

I'm beginning to see why we get our asses kicked.

by takhallus 2006-10-01 03:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Too far, back up.

1998, not 2000.  Impeachment move was well underway.  A  second term mid-term is typically a big loser for the President's party and we ended up gaining five seats.  

As for Clinton's numbers not being any use in 2000, talk to Al Gore about that.  He ran away from Clinton and lost by a hair.  He should have embraced Clinton.  He'd have spared us the last six years.

by takhallus 2006-10-01 03:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Bush and Iraq

Yes, the war in Iraq has made the USA less secure because it has inspired more and more vigorous violence against the West.

Yes, the war in Iraq has ravaged the economy, driven up the deficit, and killed, maimed and crippled our strong and promising young people.

Yes, the war in Iraq started from a lie, and continues on lies.

Yes, the war in Iraq destroyed our reputation abroad where Bush's lies and intransigence are evidently so much easier to see.

Yes, Iraq diverts the attention of a do-nothing congress, leaving much more important issues unattended.

SO where are all those Americans who voted for Bush, if not once, twice? I hope you're out there, wathcing this debacle. There's no Bill Clinton to blame it on, and no Democratic Congress to blame, because you guys have control. And skillful, you were, too, with it.

Now we have a basketful of scandals and crises. Do you think the Democrats can make hay from this mess?

I hope so because I am sick to death of the shrinking personal space I am enduring these days.

Pissed Off

by PissedOff 2006-10-01 03:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Child Predators: FOF weighs in

TPMCafe [http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/] contributor Greg Sargent reported yesterday:

Dobson Statement On Foleygate: No Mention Of House Leadership

So an official statement about Foleygate has just landed in our inbox from James Dobson's powerful evangelical organization Focus on the Family. The statement demonstrates plenty of mercy, and very little fire and brimstone. There's no word in it about the House GOP leadership, no word on whether it had a moral obligation to act sooner on Foley, and no word on its current conduct. It notes that "if" Foley is guilty of what he's been accused of, then it's right that he resigned and it's right that "authorities" (it isn't specified which ones) are looking into whether "he" committed a criminal act. And it says that "this is not a time to be talking about politics."

From Focus on the Family:

Colorado Springs, Colo. -- Focus on the Family Action Senior Vice President of Government and Public Policy Tom Minnery issued the following statement today about the scandal involving ex-Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla:

"This is not a time to be talking about politics, but about the well-being of those boys who appear to have been victimized by Rep. Foley. If he is indeed guilty of what he is accused of, it is right that he resigned and that authorities are looking into whether criminal charges are warranted.

"This is yet another sad example of our society's oversexualization, especially as it affects the Internet, and the damage it does to all who get caught in its grasp."

As Paul Krugman noted today, in February 2001, Dobson wrote the following about Bill Clinton:

When assessing the legacy of Bill Clinton, we can't overlook his shameful sexual behavior in the Oval Office, and then, his lies under oath to the American people to cover it up. Indeed, it is my belief that no man has ever done more to debase the presidency or to undermine our Constitution -- and particularly the moral and biblical principles upon which it is based -- than has William Jefferson Clinton.

Oct 2, 2006 -- 06:33:54 PM EST | Tags: National

by anomalous4 2006-10-03 05:20AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads