Media cite GOP excuses for Foley scandal that, if true, would change nothing
SUMMARY: The media have helped advance a number of excuses and explanations offered up by conservatives and the GOP for Republican House leaders' handling of information about alleged misconduct by then-Rep. Mark Foley that, even if true, would have no bearing on the underlying issues raised by the scandal.
As Media Matters for America has documented, the media have helped advance a number of excuses and explanations offered up by conservatives and the GOP for the handling by Republican House leaders of information regarding alleged misconduct toward underage former pages by then-Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL). These excuses generally have little or no factual support, and, indeed, in some cases have been shown to be false. Yet, major media outlets have repeated them as though they have credibility. More significantly, the media repeat them as though, even if true, they would have any bearing on the underlying issues raised by the scandal. In fact, whether a 16-year-old goaded Foley into engaging in a sexually explicit instant-message exchange; whether liberals and the media had the information before the scandal broke and sat on it until a month before the midterm elections; and whether the House leadership forced Foley to resign upon learning of the sexually explicit instant messages have no bearing on whether the House leadership covered up Foley's alleged conduct rather than fully investigating and ensuring it would not continue.
The pages did it
A number of conservative media figures have claimed that the former pages with whom Foley was allegedly in contact somehow set up the congressman. On the October 2 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio program, Internet gossip Matt Drudge claimed that the pages, whom he referred to as "beasts," were "egging the congressman on" during their alleged conversations, claiming that "[t]hese kids were playing Foley for everything he was worth." Drudge later elaborated on this charge, claiming that a series of salacious online conversations allegedly between Foley and a former page "were part of an online prank that by mistake got into the hands of enemy political operatives." Similarly, Michael Savage, on the October 3 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio program, accused a former page of "gay-baiting" and claimed that "the kid was leading him on." Savage called the page a "sleazeball" and further stated: "He went to Washington to get ahead. So he's a greedy, aggressive child" who "knew how to play a congressman who was gay."
Even if Drudge and Savage's unsupported -- and rebutted -- claims are correct, the actions of the underage former pages would have no bearing on whether House leaders covered up the Foley matter, putting their own political interest over their responsibility to protect minors in their charge.
Democrats, liberal groups were responsible for release of the emails
House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) and other Republicans have repeatedly accused Democrats and others of complicity in the Foley scandal, and these charges have been uncritically repeated in the media numerous times despite the weight of evidence to the contrary. Additionally, as Media Matters noted, Savage, nationally syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh, Fox News host Sean Hannity, and right-wing pundit Michelle Malkin have also suggested that Democrats orchestrated the Foley scandal -- specifically, they accused Democrats of sitting on the alleged emails and instant messages, and then releasing them when they would inflict the most damage politically on Republicans. Limbaugh went a step further, hypothesizing that the Democrats may have coerced a page -- either with money or threats -- into "titillat[ing]" Foley.
ABC chief investigative correspondent Brian Ross has debunked this claim, noting that his sources for the story, to the extent that they had partisan affiliations, were Republicans. None of the conservatives making this allegation has offered any indication as to when the Democrats supposedly obtained the emails, and indeed after making the allegation, Hastert acknowledged he had no evidence. The only specific allegations have been levied against Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), a nonpartisan 501(c)(3) organization that says it received copies of the emails in July and immediately sent them to the FBI. Hannity and U.S. News & World Report senior writer Michael Barone suggested that CREW withheld the emails from the House leadership and timed their release "for maximum political advantage." In fact, as Media Matters noted, CREW sent the emails to the FBI on July 21, and the House GOP leadership knew of the emails by winter 2005 at the very latest -- long before CREW obtained them -- but failed to notify the Democrats on the congressional Page Board. Therefore, if one were to assume -- against all the evidence to the contrary -- that Hastert, Savage, Limbaugh, Hannity, Barone, and Malkin are correct, and Democrats or CREW had advance knowledge of the Foley emails but sat on them until they could be used for maximum political benefit, that would not change the fact that the House leadership, with responsibility over the pages and in the best position to investigate further, knew of emails at least as early as late 2005 and did not share them with the full Page Board, nor did it undertake a full investigation of the matter.
GOP leadership saw only the emails
A number of media outlets have uncritically repeated claims by House GOP leaders that they saw only the alleged email exchange Foley had with a former page in 2005, not the reportedly more salacious instant messages that were later revealed, and that they determined the emails were merely "over friendly." But even if true, according to the Los Angeles Times, experts on sexual misconduct say the emails alone -- even without the more explicit instant messages -- "were classic examples of the tactics predatory adults use to approach young people and called for close and immediate examination." Dr. Paul Appelbaum, the director of the Psychiatry, Law and Ethics division in the Department of Psychiatry at Columbia University, was quoted in the Times article as saying that the emails "do in fact raise a red flag." Moreover as Media Matters has noted, numerous conservatives and Republicans have said that the emails alone should have triggered immediate, forthright action by the House leadership.
House leaders secured Foley's resignation
On the October 3 broadcast of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show, Hastert claimed that "we took care of Mr. Foley. We found out about it, asked him to resign. He did resign. He's gone. We asked for an investigation. We've done that." As Media Matters noted, that statement contradicted Hastert's statement from a press conference the day before, during which he claimed that "we really didn't have a chance to ask him to resign." Nevertheless, Hastert's claim that the GOP forced Foley out was repeated uncritically in the media. But assuming that his claim is true, the fact remains that Foley resigned only after ABC News obtained the sexually explicit instant messages and informed Foley that it was going to make them public. Even after the House leadership learned of the alleged emails, the House leadership allowed Foley to stay in Congress and remain as co-chairman of the Missing and Exploited Children Caucus. Moreover, Rep. Tom Reynolds (R-NY), chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee reportedly persuaded Foley to seek re-election.















of the whole Foley deal has been the "entrapment" angle. The same Cons who are disgusted that somebody doesn't get convicted for selling a joint to an undercover cop who hounds him into it treat Foley's actions as almost incidental to those irresistible pages.
Says more about the people commenting, and their own tendencies, than the nefarious teenagers.
If you ask me, which nobody did.
except who holds the House and the Senate. Of course, you could argue that there was likely going to be some change in that anyway.
I can't believe that this close to the election that the GOP can not even muster the fake outrage they spew at every opportunity, not even to save themselves. They truly have become pitiful and leaders should not be so. So, they need to go.
The rank hypocrisy, cynicism and amorality of the Democratic party and its apologists controlling the mainstream media is most apparent in the avalanche of propaganda.
What do we have here? We have a sex scandal in which NO SEX OCCURRED! We have a Republican leadership that demanded and received the resignation of the 'offender' upon disclosure of the indescretions.
What were the indescretions? The 'offender' engaged in lurid instant messaging with an 18 year old, an adult. He also exchanged emails with a 17 year old, which although they revealed the existence of an inappropriate relationship between a person of great authority and a subordinate not of age, they conatin NO SEXUAL CONTENT! Nor do they indicate the correspondents ever trysted, engaged in sex or exchanged pornography.
And how does this compare with the past actions of Democrats? Rep. Gerry Studds had homosexual sex repeatedly with a 17 year old house page. He was caught, censured by the House for his actions, but did not resign, only retiring from the House some 13 years later. President Clinton carried on an illicit sexual relationship with a subordinate in his office, although there was nothing criminal about this action, it was a gross nisues of his position and a violation of a public trust in his care. He later perjured himself and subborned perjury from Ms Lewinsky in connection with these incidents, both of which ARE crimes. Instead of resigning upon disclosure, he dragged the whole country through an impeachment proceedings. Rep Barney Frank was caught fixing tickets for people who were illegally parking in front of his DC townhouse. Why? Because his homosexual lover, Stephan Gobie, was operating a male prosttitution service out of that townhouse and the persons ticketed for illegal parking there were 'Johns'. THis was 10 years ago and Frank is still in office. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy while under the influence of alcohol drove a car of a bridge into a body of water in Chappaquiddick, Ma. He then fled the scene and concealed himself for several hours before reporting the accident to the police. These events are thought to have caused the death by drowning of Mary Jo Kopecni. He misused his political and personal influence to suppress an autopsy of the body and prevent himself from being charged with felonies for DWI, vehicular homicide, and leaving the scene of a fatal accident. This piece of detritus is still, 30 years later, a US Senator. And then there is Rep. Mel Reynolds. Would you like to discuss him?
Only a weak minded fool or someone with a memoruy 30 days long would believe the Democrats are in any way the moral equivalents of the Republicans. The Republicans appear as saints in spite of their defects when compared to these low-life Democrats. This is not to be wondered at when one considers that Democrats are the champions of moral relativity.
in the sexual deviance race. I'm not even going to bother refuting your many errors above, as that's been done many times, but you clearly have a wildly exaggerated view of the moral purity of the people in your party. Feel free to take a gander at this collection: [link to www.dkosopedia.com]
Yes, it's partisan, but everything in it is true. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: the Republicans have absolutely no claim to the moral high ground, not on issues, and not on the personal behavior of its members. The fact that they are the ones who claim the moral high ground makes it all the worse for them. It's a long word, and starts with an 'H'; look it up.
Your arguments that Democrats represent a more moral alternative to Republicans is as utterly baseless today as it was ten, twenty or even thirty years ago.
You can't refute a single thing I said above about these Democratic scandals because it is all true, all of it investigated and verified. Your unsupported claims to the contrary are simply lying and self deception.
As to quoting the KOSssacks as a source, even you know better. Try the Congressional Ethics committees. There are two of them, one for each chamber. The scandals I mentioned all found their way in there.
Let's mention a few more fine messes your sleazeball Dem friends have constructed while we are here. You ave heard of Rep. Mollohan of West Virginia perhaps? [link to pegpundit.wordpress.com] And recall Wilbur Mills? [link to www.washingtonpost.com] Then there was Dan Rostenkowski. [link to www.motherjones.com] And lest should we not overlook Rep. William Jefferson? [link to www.washingtonpost.com] The Republicans went out on a limb trying to see that he was afforded due process even though it looks like he is as guilty as they come, yet the left attacked them for this too! Then there is the story of James Traficant. [link to archives.cnn.com] We should not overlook Sen Robert Torriceli should we? [link to www.nationalreview.com]
You and your Democrat friends are emminently qualified to speak on ethics. What Foley has done PALES in significance with these myriad offenses. But there are always folks like you ready to draw moral equivalence between Foley's petty misdeeds, which at this point, look like nothing worse than misuing his office to facilitate his personal affairs and a proven sexual predator. No one has yet shown he violated any laws or molested any minors. Add to that Foley has resigned. The ONLY one of the lengthy list of Democrats above who did that was Torriceli, and he only did that under the direct pressure of Bill Clinton.
Back in 2000 the righties promised they were "ushering in a new era of personal responsibility". (crickets chirping)
There is always the possibility that conservative media operatives advancing "shift-the-blame" articles of faith in connexion with l'affaire Foley could be resorting to forgery to make their case known for "winning of hearts and minds" ends to a poor, undereducated and easily-influenced audience unaware of the likelihood that such "proof" presented is, in fact, forgery.
And the sophistication of software programmes like Microsoft Office, Microsoft Word and Adobe Acrobat makes forgeries look so professional, even law-enforcement researchers who study forged or questionable documents can easily be tricked.
And here are some questions as are worth asking to such propagandists seeking to shift onus upon "sinister elements" for the current mess, while concurrently protecting themselves.
would believe the Democrats are in any way the moral equivalents of the Republicans. The Republicans appear as saints in spite of their defects when compared to these low-life Democrats." - NL207
WOW . . . I only wish you had as much of that righteous outrage for the actual alledged pedophile himself {Foley} as you do for Democrats . . . you know, I'd LOVE to believe that Repubs are "saints in spite of their defects", when compared to Democrats, but, well . . . its just every time I read about such luminaries as Duke Cunningham, Bob Ney, Tom DeLay, Jack Abramoff, George Allen, et. al., its just - as Bush would say - "haaarrd worrrk." Not to mention the fact that it wasn't Dems who started an illegal war against a nonagressive nation based on cooked intel that has resulted in thousands of lives lost . . .
"What do we have here? We have a sex scandal in which NO SEX OCCURRED! We have a Republican leadership that demanded and received the resignation of the 'offender' upon disclosure of the indescretions." - NL207
Please recheck your facts . . . remember, these allegations go back since Foley was first elected, in the Class of '94. A page may not have yet come forward with a report of having had actual sex with the former congressman . . . and, if you had bothered to read the item above, you'd have noted where it said " . . . that statement contradicted Hastert's statement from a press conference the day before, when Hastert claimed that 'we really didn't have the chance to ask him to resign.' "
If that's you, Rush, please . . . check yourself before you post here {btw, does NL stand for "no logic"?}