US Rep. Mark Foley Resigns From Congress
Welcome Instapundit readers! **NEW UPDATE AT 9PM BELOW**
A friend of mine in DC is telling me that the Associated Press is reporting the imminent resignation of US Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL).
**UPDATED** - Foley has resigned from Congress this afternoon, according to the Associated Press at 3:18PM.
For those of you who haven’t seen the news about his email exchange with a 16-year old Congressional Page, the Washington Post had it on p. A7 this morning.
The Democratic opponent of Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.) is calling for an investigation into an e-mail exchange that Foley conducted last year with a 16-year-old boy who had worked as a congressional page.
Foley, 52, has served in the House for six terms and is seeking reelection. He said that the five e-mails he wrote to the boy were harmless and that their publication is part of an attempt by Democrats to smear him.
In the brief but chatty e-mails, which were first reported by ABC News, Foley asked how old the boy was, inquired what he wanted for his birthday, requested a picture of the young man and told him that he had just finished a long bike ride and was going to the gym.
According to ABC, the boy forwarded the e-mail that requested his picture to an unidentified congressional staffer and wrote that the e-mail was “sick sick sick sick sick.” In another e-mail to a staffer, ABC reported, the boy wrote: “Maybe it is just me being paranoid, but seriously. This freaked me out.”
I was going to wait to see how this turned out before blogging on it. But with reports coming out now about a resignation, I figured it was time to post on this.
First, in the interest of full disclosure, I would like to state that I have personally contributed to Rep. Foley’s House campaigns and his abandoned US Senate race. I was friends with a number of his Congressional staff when I lived and worked in the DC metro area. And I interacted with Rep. Foley on several occasions at business-related social functions and official meetings. He was always a gentleman and one of the more knowledgeable Members of Congress I had ever met.
That being said, three immediate thoughts came to my mind when I first read this story earlier today:
First — a 16-year old!?!? I just don’t get that!!!
Second — Think a long, long time before you put stuff in email. It never goes away and travels all around the world.
Third – Foley will be lynched, while Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) was given a pass for having his call-boy boyfriend running a prostitution ring out of Frank’s townhouse and he has won re-election ever since.
Aside from that, I am interested in seeing how the facts play out before casting judgment on anyone involved.
**FURTHER UPDATE** — It sounds like a criminal investigation will (and should) occur.
Hours earlier, ABC News had read excerpts of instant messages provided by former male pages who said the congressman, under the AOL Instant Messenger screen name Maf54, made repeated references to sexual organs and acts.
In a statement, Foley said, “I am deeply sorry and I apologize for letting down my family and the people of Florida I have had the privilege to represent.”
**MORE** - The folks at National Review Online have a look at the political fallout in Florida’s 16th District in the wake of Foley’s departure.
And, here’s a history of Congressional sex scandals… one-stop shopping!
Even more Foley round-up over at StopTheACLU.
**9PM UPDATE** - There is an obsession by some commenters as to why I never “outed” Mark Foley if I knew he was gay, assuming I did.
Unlike Liberals, I do not believe that being gay and Republican is a crime. In fact, I don’t think it is a crime to be gay with any political persuasion. Those on the Left obviously disagree since they are obsessed with “outing” people.
But my question is, why did the St. Petersburg Times not expose Foley as a possible child sex predator if they had the story last November?
Efforts to reach the boy were unsuccessful, but he told the St. Petersburg Times last November, “I thought it was very inappropriate. After the one about the picture, I decided to stop e-mailing him back.” The Times didn’t publish the comments until Friday.
What responsibility does the St. Petersburg Times have to expose allegations of a very serious crime when they become aware of it….versus sitting on it until Election time? It really makes me wonder what they were thinking. Tom Bevan of RealClearPolitics agrees with me.
So if the St. Pete Times could have nailed the story down a long time ago and didn’t, that leads us to two fairly divergent pieces of speculation: Was the paper planning on springing the story closer to the election and got scooped by CREW and ABC News? Or was the paper deliberately ignoring the story in an effort to cover for Foley? Neither seems all that likely to me, so I’m at a loss as to what motivated the St. Petersburg Times to keep a lid on this story for the better part of a year.
What is going on here?
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
Congressman Foley Resigns Over Emails With Teen Page…
Via Breitbart:
Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla., submitted a letter of resignation from Congress on Friday in the wake of questions about e-mails he wrote a former male page, according to a congressional official.
Foley, 52, had been considered a shoo-in for …
Trackback by Stop The ACLU — September 29, 2006 @ 3:40 pm - September 29, 2006
I’m reminded of the political axiom about being caught with a dead girl…or a live boy….in your bed.
When you reach a certain-age, twinkies are NOT good for your health.
Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — September 29, 2006 @ 3:44 pm - September 29, 2006
Assuming that the IMs are as explosive as ABC says they are, then he had to go. On the other hand, the Democrats and certain gay organizations are in no position to cluck: they fully supported Gerry Studds even though he admitted to screwing a page. That should not be forgotten.
Comment by Patrick Rothwell — September 29, 2006 @ 3:53 pm - September 29, 2006
Not to mention Barney Frank (D-MA) and his boy lollipop. And this screamer is still in the House!
Or sexual deviants like Teddy Kennedy and Chris Dodd in the Senate. Remember the infamous “waittress sandwich” at the Capitol Grille?
Still - if Foley was a stalker and used AOL to IM a lot of boys in the chat room, then it is excusable. He must go.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — September 29, 2006 @ 3:58 pm - September 29, 2006
where theres smoke theres fire. I knew it had to be more than just these innocous emails.
Comment by lester — September 29, 2006 @ 3:59 pm - September 29, 2006
This will get the Democrats a free seat. However, they will end up with an even bigger scandal.
Once leftists come into power, they scare everyone away for years to come.
Comment by Tinker — September 29, 2006 @ 3:59 pm - September 29, 2006
#4: “if Foley was a stalker and used AOL to IM a lot of boys in the chat room, then it is excusable”
Freudian slip, Petey?
Looks like Foley’s name will stay on the ballot but the GOP can run someone else who will get Foley’s votes. Yeah, all those Repubs pulling a lever or whatever for a child molester! Methinks another Dem pickup from a safe repub seat.
Comment by Ian — September 29, 2006 @ 4:04 pm - September 29, 2006
Congressman Mark ‘Page Boy’ Foley Resigns…
I thought twice (actually, four times) about blogging this, but what the hay?
I try to avoid salacious stuff, but it’s Friday, so…whatever.
Last night I read that Republican Congressmen Mark Foley sent strange e-mail message to a 16-year…
Trackback by La Shawn Barber's Corner — September 29, 2006 @ 4:04 pm - September 29, 2006
[Comment deleted.]
Comment by Queer Patriot — September 29, 2006 @ 4:22 pm - September 29, 2006
In mentioning one of many felonious Massachusetts politicians, you missed the best possible comparison - Congressman Gerry Studds. Studds raped a page, was forced to admit it, defiantly claimed consenting adults, and was reelected several times after it came out.
I hope Foley faces full legal scrutiny and if anything shows up that hints he did anything with a child that he goes to jail.
I wonder how the media would treat this if he were a dem…
Comment by Sean — September 29, 2006 @ 4:27 pm - September 29, 2006
#4 - Mea culpa. My next-to-last sentence should have said “INexcusable.”
If any of you think I would ever condone any kind of NAMBLA-type activity for anyone, you are wrong. There is a reason why it is considered an age of consent.
I’m still waiting for other libs to decry the hypocrisy in their own party (Barney Frank, Gerry Stubbs et al). Show us your true colors.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — September 29, 2006 @ 4:28 pm - September 29, 2006
[...] Update II: Also commenting: Gay Patriot (who beat me to it on the comparison between this scandal and the one about Rep. Barney Frank from the late 80s), La Shawn Barber, Stop The ACLU, Blog For All, Suitably Flip By: Sister Toldjah in: Breaking News Stories, Congress | Email this post Trackback URI for this post: http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2006/09/29/good-riddance/trackback/ » Trackbacks & Pingbacks [...]
Pingback by Sister Toldjah » US Rep. Mark Foley: Good riddance (UPDATE II) — September 29, 2006 @ 4:49 pm - September 29, 2006
Why can’t the Repubs in his district pull a “New Joisey” and simply appoint someoe else?
Comment by paul a'barge — September 29, 2006 @ 5:07 pm - September 29, 2006
Congressman Mark Foley…
Full Disclosure- Before commenting I must tell that my wife has met the Congressman’s parents but not Mark Foley himself. The Foleys were at one time parrishoners at the same Roman Catholic Church dear wife and I attend and where DW works as church r….
Trackback by The Florida Masochist — September 29, 2006 @ 5:11 pm - September 29, 2006
Clause 4: US Constitution
When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies.
My take is the seat remains empty and the Governor, Jeb Bush, has to call for a special election allowing due process for nominations and actual election to take place. I guess this would rule out this November.
Comment by Benj — September 29, 2006 @ 5:16 pm - September 29, 2006
Wasn’t Mark Foley the inspiration for the Congressman charactere in Striptease?
Good blg, by the way, I found you through Instapundit.
Comment by VCID — September 29, 2006 @ 5:17 pm - September 29, 2006
Foley is as pathetic as McGreevy.
Comment by Chase — September 29, 2006 @ 5:27 pm - September 29, 2006
If you personally know Mark Foley, then why can’t you or why won’t you report whether or not he is indeed a homosexual?
Congressman Foley has repeatedly denied being gay. If this incident is true, then he has lied to his constituents. Shouldn’t that be the story?
Comment by Anonymous — September 29, 2006 @ 5:34 pm - September 29, 2006
4. Forgive my ignorance…
Althought Barney Franks acquaintaince did run an illegal prostitution ring out of his townhouse, wasn’t that acquaintance at least of legal age?
I can’t wait to read the rest of this, hoping it was something that was exagerated. Of course, the first couple of lines from the e-mail in which Foley asked for a pic reminded me of a conversation negotiating a hook up.
Comment by James — September 29, 2006 @ 5:35 pm - September 29, 2006
Given the age of the page involved, I think resignation is in order. I don’t see how you can defend this kind of behavior, if the allegations are true.
I also have issues with congressmembers propositioning or becoming sexually involved with pages or interns-too much power exchange in those relationships for me to be comfortable.
The dems I am sure are happy to have gotten a free seat.
Comment by just me — September 29, 2006 @ 5:36 pm - September 29, 2006
#18 - I am not in the habit of “outing” people. That is a personal decision.
#20 - I am certainly not defending any of the alleged behavior. Where on earth do you come up with that?
Comment by GayPatriot — September 29, 2006 @ 5:40 pm - September 29, 2006
If you personally know Mark Foley, then why can’t you or why won’t you report whether or not he is indeed a homosexual?
There are two reasons.
One, because it is no one else’s business but Foley’s.
Gays demand that no one judge us or make statements about us based on what we do in the bedroom; we should practice what we preach.
Two, if the allegations are true and Foley is a pedophile, then why on earth do you want to give more credence to the belief that gays are pedophiles by trying to claim he’s gay?
Althought Barney Franks acquaintaince did run an illegal prostitution ring out of his townhouse, wasn’t that acquaintance at least of legal age?
So it’s OK to use Congressional privilege to protect and shield someone running a gay prostitution ring out of your house as long as they’re of legal age.
I believe that is called “equivocation”, and it’s a tactic often used by Democrats to explain why they don’t have to condemn actions by theirs that they would condemn in others.
Take a lesson from this thread, James; every one of the gay conservatives has stated bluntly that, if the allegations are true, Foley not only should resign, but should be prosecuted. But the Dems, when confronted with examples of their own misdeeds, try to equivocate why they shouldn’t be held to the same standards.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 29, 2006 @ 5:43 pm - September 29, 2006
22, you should have learned by now that I write what I mean and mean what I write. If I didn’t type that I thought it was okay to use congressional privilege to shield someone, then you can go ahead and assume that I do not think so. If you’re not certain, you have my email address and can ask me either there or on this board for clarification.
My comment was actually meant to be a response Peter’s comment (4). Abuse of power is never okay, but in the case of Foley, the e-mail did look to be inappropriate and sickening to me given the page’s age. I’m hoping that as I read more, I’ll see evidence that the e-mails actually were blown out of proportion.
Comment by James — September 29, 2006 @ 5:56 pm - September 29, 2006
The New Jersey Supreme Court had to ignore their statutes to allow the Dems to replace Toricelli, though the Dems had freely voted for the scandal-ridden fellow in the primary, on the grounds that they would be deprived of an opportunity to vote for a candidate of their own choosing.
Don’t forget Missouri 2000, where Ashcroft lost to a corpse, whose widow was appointed to the nomination/senate in his stead.
It depends on Florida’s laws. But then the Florida Supreme Court has already demonstrated it will ignore crystal clear legislation to achieve the outcome favored by four of its members (See Gore v. Bush, 2000), so they should be willing to set aside any possible restrictions to allowing the GOP to field another candidate.
Comment by Brezh — September 29, 2006 @ 6:05 pm - September 29, 2006
Just for the record, as a liberal dem., at the time (s), I thought that both Gerry Studds and Barney Frank should have been held accountable for their roles in these alleged violations, and that they should have been investigated and prosecuted if found guilty, regardless of their political affilations/status. I know many other liberals who expressed the same sentiments, and who also thought that both reps should resign. We’re not ALL ‘party blilnd’ when criminal activity is involved.
I appreciate the fact that GP posted this item, especially knowing that Mark Foley is a republican. He could’ve remained completely silent on the subject, and never addressed it. It speaks volumes for his character. Kudos, GP
Comment by ndtovent — September 29, 2006 @ 6:13 pm - September 29, 2006
If it is “no one’s business but Foley’s”, then why did he respond to the questions by saying “I am not gay”? He should have said “it isn’t your business” or “that’s private”. Both of those statements are TRUE. But he DIDN’T say that. He can’t say “I am not gay” and then come along and claim that his sexual orientation is private. Once he discusses it publicly, especially when he makes a FALSE statement about it, it is no longer private. It is public. And it is of public concern because voters have a right to know if their elected officals are lying to their faces.
The story isn’t if he is gay or not, but whether or not he LIED when he claimed publicly that he was not. And if Gaypatriot and other gay Republicans KNOW that he was lying, then why haven’t they reported on it? Isn’t lying by a Congressman newsworthy? Clinton saying he never had sex with that woman sure seemed newsworthy to you at the time.
Comment by Anonymous — September 29, 2006 @ 6:16 pm - September 29, 2006
Anonymous, let me use emphasis in text to show the problem with your argument.
The story isn’t if he is gay or not, but whether or not he LIED when he claimed publicly that he was not. And if Gaypatriot and other gay Republicans KNOW that he was lying, then why haven’t they reported on it?
So, to summarize:
1) You don’t know whether or not Foley is gay
2) You don’t know whether or not GP knew whether or not Foley is gay.
But you are saying that you absolutely know that Foley is gay, that he lied to his constituency, and that GayPatriot covered it up — even though you admit that you don’t know whether any of those are true.
It should be obvious to anyone at this point that you’ve made up your mind and are acting accordingly, facts be damned. As would be expected, you’re using the liberal leftist tactic of making accusations by asking questions, and when you are cornered, you’ll try to whine that you didn’t really mean it.
Furthermore, one might point out the key difference between Foley and Clinton: Foley resigned of his own accord without clear proof of him having done anything other than email people, and Clinton refused to resign despite having openly lied to the American public and given false testimony before a grand jury about his seduction and sex with an intern in the Oval Office — something that would qualify as “harassment” anywhere but in the Democratic Party.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 29, 2006 @ 6:36 pm - September 29, 2006
Quite a shocker. The initial emails sounded like a whole lot of nuthin. Harmless stuff with the congressman getting chatty with a former staffer. The explanation for the picture request seemed totally reasonable.
I guess I was wrong. Quick resignation, must be something.
Comment by byrd — September 29, 2006 @ 7:00 pm - September 29, 2006
GP sorry, I didn’t think you were-my “you” was the general you, not you personally. Probably should have used anyone instead.
Comment by just me — September 29, 2006 @ 7:13 pm - September 29, 2006
mayhaps the dude just wanted some young browneye.
Comment by Deliverance — September 29, 2006 @ 7:17 pm - September 29, 2006
North Dallas 30–
I KNOW the man is gay, because he is asking 16-year-old boys if he makes them horny, and then saying “cool” when they say he is. So I think that we are all now clear on the question of whether or not this 52-year-old bachelor is gay or not.
And, indeed, I do not know whether or not Gaypatriot knew before today if Foley was gay… which is why I asked him to please say if he knew or not. Gaypatriot seems to think that a man who says “I am not gay” should not be “outed”, even if that statement is a false one. Lying isn’t serious? Truth doesn’t matter?
I don’t think it unreasonable to ask a gay Republican, who brags about extensive Washington contacts and admits to a personal acquaintance with Foley, to comment on whether or not he knew that Foley was indeed a homosexual. Who better to know the answer (other than 16-year-old pages, I mean)?
And if Gaypatriot DID know that Foley was gay and that Foley was lying when he denied being gay, why wasn’t that matter worthy of being reported upon? A man who goes in front of a camera to talk about his sexual orientation can hardly plead privacy later. He is a public figure who has publicly discussed his sexual orientation in the past (when it was politically convenient for him, I might add)… so that makes it public. Mark Foley waived his claim to privacy on this issue when he opened his big mouth and lied about it.
And I would also point out that you are flat-out lying about the facts. Foley did NOT resign over the emails. He resigned after ABC’s Brian Ross confronted him with Instant Messages provided to ABCNews by OTHER pages… Instant Messages that were sexually explicit, obscene, and unfit for broadcast television. This information has been available all afternoon. So you are either misrepresenting the facts or you just don’t know what the facts are. Which is it? Either way, you aren’t really qualified to comment on facts about which you plainly know nothing.
Either way, the question remains: did Gaypatriot know that Mark Foley was a homosexual before today? If so, then why didn’t he report that Foley was lying when he denied being gay? Seems simple enough. Answering those questions won’t harm anyone, will it? Did gay Republicans keep hush-hush over Foley’s sexual orientation?
(On an aside, it seems that SOMEONE knew about it. According to new reports, during orientation Congressional pages were routinely warned about Mark Foley. Did this fact ALSO escape the notice of gay Republicans who were “friends with a number of his Congressional staff” and “interacted with Rep. Foley on several occasions”? If this was an open secret in Washington, why is it so unreasonable to ask Gaypatriot if he was in on the secret or not?)
Comment by Anonymous — September 29, 2006 @ 7:28 pm - September 29, 2006
Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) Resigns Over IMs With Teen Page (VIDEO)…
Florida Rep. Mark Foley’s resignation came just hours after ABC News questioned the congressman about a series of sexually explicit instant messages involving congressional pages, high school students who are under 18 years of age.
In Congress, R…
Trackback by Ms Underestimated — September 29, 2006 @ 7:52 pm - September 29, 2006
“First — a 16-year old!?!? I just don’t get that!!!”
Question from a straight male: assuming the story is about a 52 year-old gay man persuing a 16 year-old, would this really be suprising? I recall reading an in-depth article on the gay ‘cult of youth’ (which I guess mirrors the general fetishization of youth that seems prevalent in contemporary western culture).
Comment by fidens — September 29, 2006 @ 7:58 pm - September 29, 2006
Same sex pedophiles are gay or bisexual by definition.
Asserting they aren’t is a bizarre form of political correctness.
Comment by Bill — September 29, 2006 @ 8:00 pm - September 29, 2006
-So it’s OK to use Congressional privilege to protect and shield someone running a gay prostitution ring out of your house as long as they’re of legal age.-
No, it’s not, but I did wonder why that was immediately brought up, when what happened with Frank (which he claimed he didn’t know about) was with legal adults. What happened with Foley was not. It came across as trying to find anything comparable to a Democrat, as if a Democrat having a scandal somehow minimizes what happened with Foley.
If people around the time of Frank had said, “At least he isn’t Bob Bauman!!!”, I doubt Republicans would have been appeased.
Comment by Carl — September 29, 2006 @ 8:02 pm - September 29, 2006
Rather ironic that he was the founder and chair of the “missing and expolited children” committee. Maybe looking for an opportunity to do a little “investigating” on his own? He might wind up in the can for some of the laws he wrote or sponsored (but obviously, not the can he was hoping to wind up in).
Comment by Tom — September 29, 2006 @ 8:04 pm - September 29, 2006
Good thing he’s a member of the GOP (God’s Ordained Party), the ones who will protect s from those eeevil homosexuals!
/sarc
Comment by the friendly grizzly — September 29, 2006 @ 8:07 pm - September 29, 2006
Writing from a rental computer (mine is in the shop with a fried hard drive), I can only say how sick this whole story makes me. I should have more to say on this tomorrow.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — September 29, 2006 @ 8:11 pm - September 29, 2006
I KNOW the man is gay, because he is asking 16-year-old boys if he makes them horny, and then saying “cool” when they say he is.
Ah yes, because we all know people who are turned on by underage boys are gay, don’t we?
Most normal people call them pedophiles, but hey, if you feel the need to associate being gay with wanting sex with underage children, feel free.
And, indeed, I do not know whether or not Gaypatriot knew before today if Foley was gay… which is why I asked him to please say if he knew or not.
Actually, this is what you said:
If you personally know Mark Foley, then why can’t you or why won’t you report whether or not he is indeed a homosexual?
And later this:
And if Gaypatriot and other gay Republicans KNOW that he was lying, then why haven’t they reported on it?
You didn’t ask whether or not he knew; you were berating him, saying that he DID know and that he was covering up for Foley.
And now to the real issue:
Gaypatriot seems to think that a man who says “I am not gay” should not be “outed”, even if that statement is a false one. Lying isn’t serious? Truth doesn’t matter?
Don’t even try to pull that one, puppet, unless you’re ready to say that outings like this are justified. Furthermore, I have yet to see you comment on, as I pointed out, the fact that your fellow Democratic puppets have protected antigay Democrats from outing.
What’s the matter? Lying isn’t serious? Truth isn’t important? Why are you holding back from outing anyone then, puppet, especially antigay Democrats?
Don’t try to pretend this is anything noble on your part. This is playing with peoples’ private lives for political advantage, which is something that gays supposedly oppose. If you had an ounce of dignity or self-worth, you would realize the inherent contradiction — but you do not.
People like GayPatriot and myself recognize that outing is an inherently cowardly and hateful act that harms people far more than it helps them. Personally, I think only a sick and psychotic individual with zero integrity and empathy would in any way support it — which I suppose nicely captures you.
And I would also point out that you are flat-out lying about the facts. Foley did NOT resign over the emails. He resigned after ABC’s Brian Ross confronted him with Instant Messages provided to ABCNews by OTHER pages… Instant Messages that were sexually explicit, obscene, and unfit for broadcast television.
Notice I said “clear proof”. Given that news media outlets have faked stories before, we’ll wait and see what shows up in court.
And personally, I don’t care why Foley resigned; it was his job to leave. If these messages are true, he can and should be criminally prosecuted.
Meanwhile, what happened to the Clinton comparison? Are you no longer demanding resignation for things that are “sexually explicit, obscene, and unfit for broadcast television”?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 29, 2006 @ 8:17 pm - September 29, 2006
This is a real shame and unfathomable. In reading the posted IM’s between Foley and the Page, I cannot believe his horrific judgement. He was either on drugs, mentally ill or arrogant beyond reason. His frequent typos and misspelled words (Pensecola) make me think it might be the former. Whatever the reason, he is gone and should be investigated and prosecuted if he broke the law. Florida’s election law and timorous Republicans–in contrast to Democrats in NJ, preclude fixing this election. As such, this seat may swing away. However, the seat will be up for grabs in 2008, so his elected replacement best not get too comfortable in his office.
Comment by Scott — September 29, 2006 @ 8:27 pm - September 29, 2006
I don’t understand this obsession by (ironically) “Anonymous” as to whether I knew Foley was gay and was “lying” about it. If you knew anything about the history of the multiple attempts by liberals to “officially out” Foley, he never confirmed nor denied his sexual orientation.
Who the hell am I to drag someone out of the closet if they don’t want to be? A Liberal Hypocrite who whines about “privacy”? Nope, not me.
Pedophilia is a whole other matter and frankly I don’t understand it nor have witnessed anyone in my entire life exhibiting that kind of behavior. I can assure you if I ever did or do, I will report it to the authorities.
Comment by GayPatriot — September 29, 2006 @ 8:44 pm - September 29, 2006
Rep. Mark Foley Resigns Over Sexually Explicit Ema…
Earlier reporting about Foley’s emails did not make any references to email of a sexually explicit nature, which is why the earlier reporting didn’t catch my attention. This particular report certainly puts those email communications in a different l…
Trackback by A Blog For All — September 29, 2006 @ 8:46 pm - September 29, 2006
[Comment deleted. This commenter has been repeatedly banned under his other names. He will continue to be banned.]
Comment by Anonymous — September 29, 2006 @ 8:49 pm - September 29, 2006
I certainly do not condone Rep. Foley’s behavior but I met him in DC several years ago and he was one of the more intelligent Reps. that I have spoken with.
I just do not understand this behavior from someone who knows he is the focus of the media.
However, whether Rep. Foley is or is not gay is his business alone.
Comment by PatriotMom — September 29, 2006 @ 9:05 pm - September 29, 2006
You are right, Mom!
(And you wonder where I get my strong sense of right and wrong from?)
Comment by GayPatriot — September 29, 2006 @ 9:10 pm - September 29, 2006
A couple of points. First, it was interesting to observe that the focus of the first comments here on this news was to drag up the names of a couple of gay Dems who were in similar trouble years ago. I guess “Democrats do it too” is the knee-jerk whine for repubs. Second, if we’re talking 16-yer-olds, then technically, it’s not pedophilia but ephebophilia. That said, it’s probably quite illegal in Florida and may be illegal in DC. Third, I thought it was pretty well known that Foley was gay - doesn’t he live with a partner in DC? Fourth, Bruce, the reason Foley was always a gentleman around you is perhaps because you’re a little long in the tooth for him.
Lastly, I suspect there’s a lot more taudry details to come out. Foley has almost certainly been doing this for many years - attraction to children is not something you just wake up to one morning in your forties. Pretty brazen about it too suggesting either a pathological personality or an overconfidence bred of years of getting away with this stuff.
Damn him to hell though for adding fuel to the fire that gay men are all predators chasing after kids.
Comment by Ian — September 29, 2006 @ 9:18 pm - September 29, 2006
Isn’t NAMBLA just a group of gay men who promote sex with kiddies? I think any decent gay should condemn these gutter crawlers to hell, but I don’t see that happening. They write in gay magazines, march in gay parades, and seem to be accepted by the gay community. Why? This creep was likely a member or at least believed in NAMBLA’s preachings. NAMBLA should be classified as a terrorist group which preys on kids.
Comment by kat — September 29, 2006 @ 9:20 pm - September 29, 2006
Good Riddenance to Sicko Congressman…
The hot, steamy news out of D.C. is Congressman Mark Foley resigning from his seat when news got out about……
Trackback by The American Mind — September 29, 2006 @ 9:37 pm - September 29, 2006
Ah, yes… when you are defending a morally bankrupt position (”It is Foley’s own business if he wants to lie to the voters about his sexual orientation and no one should call him a liar for doing it.”)
And now we see the tactic of the cornered liberal — to assume that they can misquote someone with impunity as a desperate means of deflecting attention.
It’s OK, we understand.
We know you didn’t think through your argument linking homosexuality to pedophilia.
We know your rhetoric on outing collapses when confronted with real-life examples of what happens when it’s actually applied — and the fact that you and yours have had no trouble with obscuring truth and lying when it’s antigay Democrats you’re protecting.
And I particularly liked this statement on your part:
And I thought Ann Coulter was the only gay man (excuse me… “transgendered person”) who engaged in this sort of vacuous name-calling.
Obviously you haven’t looked in the mirror lately.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 29, 2006 @ 10:16 pm - September 29, 2006
#47: “I think any decent gay should condemn these gutter crawlers to hell”
I just did.
“but I don’t see that happening.”
Well then you must be blind.
“They write in gay magazines, march in gay parades, and seem to be accepted by the gay community.”
Care to provide some specific examples? Probably not since you won’t likely find any. You’re just shooting off your mouth like a typical homohater.
Comment by Ian — September 29, 2006 @ 10:27 pm - September 29, 2006
First, it was interesting to observe that the focus of the first comments here on this news was to drag up the names of a couple of gay Dems who were in similar trouble years ago. I guess “Democrats do it too” is the knee-jerk whine for repubs.
Actually, the comparison was not that “Dems do it too”, but “Dems do it too — and unlike Republicans, they refuse to resign, their partisans make excuses for them, and they are perpetuated in office.”
In short, Ian, Dems protect pedophiles, rapists, and philanderers; Republicans demand they resign and condemn their actions.
Damn him to hell though for adding fuel to the fire that gay men are all predators chasing after kids.
Foley hasn’t said word one about being gay, or that being gay somehow justifies his actions — UNLIKE Democratic Governor McGreevey, who leftist and Dem gays are still protecting, claiming his being gay is justification for overt corruption, public sex, and cheating on his wife.
Ironically, Ian, it’s people like yourself, who are so desperate to prove that Foley is gay, who are doing the most to make the linkage between being gay and pedophilia. But you’re not intelligent enough to realize that.
I think any decent gay should condemn these gutter crawlers to hell, but I don’t see that happening.
This gay agrees with you 100%, Kat.
The reason most gays don’t is because teenage and child sex is something that feminist and abortionist groups — who both pay and bully gays to comply with them — encourage.
Teenagers and children tend to lack judgment, take unnecessary risks, and fail to use safety measures and devices because they are emotionally and intellectually immature. Planned Parenthood and others make hundreds, sometimes thousands, of dollars on teenagers and children having abortions; it is in their financial and ideological best interest to encourage teenage sex for that reason, which is why they support lowering of age of consent laws, bans on parental notification, and other activities meant to encourage teenagers to act irresponsibly and have sex.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 29, 2006 @ 10:31 pm - September 29, 2006
Care to provide some specific examples? Probably not since you won’t likely find any. You’re just shooting off your mouth like a typical homohater.
Harry Hay, Los Angeles Pride March, numerous writings.
Idiots like you, Ian, are why the gay community can’t advance; you treat people like dirt based on your ignorance of reality, and then you act surprised when they refuse to believe you and vote against you.
Kat is right — gays do let pedophiles write in gay magazines, march in gay parades, and be accepted by the gay community.
Denying it doesn’t make it go away.
Directly confronting it, pointing out and admitting that it happens, and condemning it des.
Kat, you’re right — gays have done all of what you mentioned. They were wrong then, and they’re wrong now. Pedophilia is not only sick and wrong, it has nothing to do with being gay — and anyone who tries to tell you differently is lying.
Furthermore, puppets like Ian, whose ignorance makes them spew hate against people like you who ask honest questions, have the same problem with rationalizing bad behavior on the basis of their being gay — and, if you stick around here, you’ll see that gays condemn that as well.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 29, 2006 @ 10:40 pm - September 29, 2006
Did Frank solicit sex from a child? NO. Don’t be a jerk.
Comment by jeff — September 29, 2006 @ 10:57 pm - September 29, 2006
“What responsibility does the St. Petersburg Times have to expose allegations of a very serious crime when they become aware of it….versus sitting on it until Election time? …What is going on here?”
Well, looks like the Republican House Leadership has also known for nearly a year and done nothing:
http://tinyurl.com/fcd6y
What IS going on here? Maybe Foley patched Denny Hastert in on a conference call for one of his sessions with the kid. Eeeeewwwww!! Time for the popcorn!
Comment by Ian — September 29, 2006 @ 11:03 pm - September 29, 2006
Nice try, Ian. Did you link again without looking?
Rep. Rodney Alexander, R-La., who sponsored the page from his district, told reporters that he learned of the e-mails from a reporter some months ago and passed on the information to Rep. Thomas Reynolds, R-N.Y., chairman of the House Republican campaign organization.
Alexander said he did not pursue the matter further because “his parents said they didn’t want me to do anything.”
Carl Forti, a spokesman for the GOP campaign organization, said Reynolds learned from Alexander that the parents did not want to pursue the matter. Forti said, however, that the matter did go before the House Page Board — the three lawmakers and two House officials who oversee the pages.
Shimkus, who avoided reporters for hours, worked out his statement with Speaker Dennis Hastert’s office. He said he promptly investigated what he thought were non-explicit message exchanges.
“It has become clear to me today, based on information I only now have learned, that Congressman Foley was not honest about his conduct,” Shimkus said.
Shimkus said that in late 2005 he learned — through information passed along by Alexander’s office — about an e-mail exchange in which Foley asked about the youngster’s well-being after Hurricane Katrina, and requested a photograph.
“Congressman Foley told the (House) clerk and me that he was simply acting as a mentor … and that nothing inappropriate had occurred,” Shimkus said.
Foley was ordered to cease all contact with the former page and assured Shimkus he would do so, the statement said. He also was advised to watch his conduct with current and former House pages, and gave assurance he would do so, Shimkus said.
He added there were no further complaints.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 29, 2006 @ 11:10 pm - September 29, 2006
Ooops, it may not have been Denny, rather, the leader who was informed was apparently John Bohner http://tinyurl.com/zq97j
How a propos. This story is getting juicier by the minute. And it couldn’t happen to a better bunch of scoundrels. Countdown to Speaker Pelosi!!
Comment by Ian — September 29, 2006 @ 11:13 pm - September 29, 2006
[Comment deleted. This commenter has been repeatedly banned under his other names. He will continue to be banned.]
Comment by Anonymous — September 29, 2006 @ 11:17 pm - September 29, 2006
LOL….listen to the puppet Democrat Anonymous suddenly trying to play moralist.
Parents can legally consent to sexual predation on behalf of their minor children?
Parents can consent to allow their child to not only have sex with, but be married to much older individuals when they are underage — indeed, well within the range of the teenager involved.
What makes this really funny is that this rhetoric is coming from Democrats like Anonymous, who oppose even parental notification when it comes to their children having sex. If a 52-year-old man has sex with a 16-year-old girl, for instance, Democrats would oppose telling her parents, because it might be harder for the girl to have an abortion.
Nevertheless, I suppose we should applaud that Anonymous, Ian, and their other Democratic friends have finally come around to reality and demanded that anyone who has sex with an underage minor be arrested and turned over to the police as a “sexual predator”.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 29, 2006 @ 11:33 pm - September 29, 2006
Also, it’s good to see Ian and Anonymous finally admit that sexual talk, sexual chat, and other statements qualify as “sexual predation”.
When can we expect them to demand the resignation of prominent Democrats like Barney Frank for being sexual predators?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 29, 2006 @ 11:36 pm - September 29, 2006
“Studds raped a page … ”
The page was 17 at the time, and said the sexual relationship was consensual. On what basis do you make the rape claim?
“the Democrats and certain gay organizations are in no position to cluck: they fully supported Gerry Studds even though he admitted to screwing a page. That should not be forgotten.”
Studds, of course, did not set himself up as a pillar of family values in general and specifically did not make a career out of highlighting Internet predators preying on young people as Foley did.
That said, Studds was censured. Presumably, Foley would have been too, and he could have tried to stay in the race, but I doubt Florida would have been quite as understanding a polity as Massachussetts was for Studds.
Comment by Brian Carnell — September 29, 2006 @ 11:49 pm - September 29, 2006
Some people here are saying that Rep. Foley should be prosecuted and has committed a serious crime. But for what would he be prosecuted? Unless he actually touched the boy, there is no crime here. Since the e-mails were not sexually explicit, his behavior can only be categorized as inappropriate.
I think it is wild speculation to assume that Mark Foley is a sexual predator in the absence of any evidence that he touched a child. It is however more bad publicity for the gay community. Foley’s now the Republican McGreevy.
Comment by Chase — September 29, 2006 @ 11:50 pm - September 29, 2006
Christ on a crutch, anon, learn how to read.
(emphasis added)
For the reading-impaired, that means the GOP leaders didn’t know of any explicit messages because Foley lied to them. The parents apparently did not know of any such messages, nor did the boy apparently mention any.
In other words, the exchange was questionable, but not actionable, based on what they knew at the time.
Trust a brain-dead Dem to twist that around into an accusation against the GOP by phrasing his character attack as a passive/aggressive “question.”
Kudos to GayPatriot for shining some light on this event.
Comment by Casey Tompkins — September 29, 2006 @ 11:53 pm - September 29, 2006
The page was 17 at the time, and said the sexual relationship was consensual. On what basis do you make the rape claim?
Well, you see, Brian, Democrats like Anonymous and IanRaj say that anyone who even talks sexually to a minor is a sexual predator; therefore, Studds, who actually had sex with the underage minor in question, is quite obviously a rapist.
Let’s see if IanRaj and Anonymous apply their own rules to their fellow Democrats — or if they come up with excuses for why it was all right for Studds to have sex with a page and stay in office.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 29, 2006 @ 11:59 pm - September 29, 2006
love that GOP! Noe and Foley history within 2 weeks!?…what good family values they espouse! How proud all you conservatives must be! Toss in Duke Cunningham, Abramoff, and the world’s greatest criminal, george bullshit, and one can see why both the house and senate will change hands in six weeks.
all ya’all better get a fixin on that legislation giving this filthy administration a free pass for all their past crimes. there gonna need it to stay out of jail.
oh, and let me guess, foley voted against any gay equality legislation, eh? pathetic, simply pathetic.
Comment by rightiswrong — September 30, 2006 @ 12:10 am - September 30, 2006
Oops, I guess I am behind on this story. I didn’t know there were now instant messages involved that are indeed sexually explicit. Yeah, that sort of changes the dynamics. But still, I think a prosecution would be difficult here, due to the inherent difficultes in validating that instant message conversations have not been fabricated.
Remember, Mark Foley should be presumed innocent. I don’t think his resignation should in any way be pressumed to be an admission of guilt.
Comment by Chase — September 30, 2006 @ 12:14 am - September 30, 2006
Well, there are gay pedophiles and there are straight pedophiles. The gay ones prefer children of the same sex, whereas the straight ones prefer the opposite sex. Are you claiming that a gay man could never, by definition, be a pedophile?
Comment by Korla Pundit — September 30, 2006 @ 12:15 am - September 30, 2006
oh, and chase of #61…apparently you haven’t seen any of the “to catcha predator” series on dateline nbc? sexually explicit talk w/a minor is illegal in most states. here in OH the GOP atty general candidate, betty montgomery, is running an ad stating that precisely…it’s all covered within meghans law or somesuch crap to “protect america’s families.”
maybe we need the HP spy leaders eavesdropping on congressional members to root out all this gop evil.
Comment by rightiswrong — September 30, 2006 @ 12:15 am - September 30, 2006
Ian–don’t get defensive–I have nothing against gays except NAMBLA–them I despise with every inch of my being. There seem to be some very nice gays here and I respect them and certainly feel no hatred. Your life is your own–just don’t do it with kiddies. Same for hetero pedos–they are no better. Thank you, North Dallas Thirty.
Anyways here is a sample:
(Care to provide some specific examples? Probably not since you won’t likely find any. You’re just shooting off your mouth like a typical homohater).
{The Journal of Homosexuality recently published a special double-issue entitled, “Male Intergenerational Intimacy,” containing many articles portraying sex between men and minor boys as loving relationships. One article said parents should look upon the pedophile who loves their son “not as a rival or competitor, not as a theft of their property, but as a partner in the boy’s upbringing, someone to be welcomed into their home.”
In 1995 the homosexual magazine “Guide” said, “We can be proud that the gay movement has been home to the few voices who have had the courage to say out loud that children are naturally sexual” and “deserve the right to sexual expression with whoever they choose. …” The article went on to say: “Instead of fearing being labeled pedophiles, we must proudly proclaim that sex is good, including children’s sexuality … we must do it for the children’s sake.”
Larry Kramer, the founder of ACT-UP, a noted homosexual activist group, wrote in his book, “Report from the Holocaust: The Making of an AIDS Activist”: “In those instances where children do have sex with their homosexual elders, be they teachers or anyone else, I submit that often, very often, the child desires the activity, and perhaps even solicits it.”
In a study of advertisements in the influential homosexual newspaper, The Advocate, Reisman found ads for a “Penetrable Boy Doll … available in three provocative positions. She also found that the number of erotic boy images in each issue of The Advocate averaged 14.} These NAMBLA articles cast a negative light on all homosexuals. It is unfair to have a bunch of sickos espousing sick views in a homosexual magazine as if they speak for the whole gay community. That was my point–not hatred.
Good night–sorry I ruffled your feathers.
Comment by Kat — September 30, 2006 @ 12:24 am - September 30, 2006
Are you claiming that a gay man could never, by definition, be a pedophile?
Nope.
It is entirely possible for a person to be a gay pedophile. But simply because a person is a pedophile doesn’t necessarily mean that they are gay OR straight. For pedophilia, the age is more the thing than anything else; there are male pedophiles, for instance, who have heterosexual relationships with women, but prefer boys.
In short, pedophilia is its own breed of cat, and needs to be considered accordingly; As I’ve previously blogged, mingling it with homosexuality makes no more sense than with heterosexuality.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 30, 2006 @ 12:34 am - September 30, 2006
Ugh, this story is just bad. As a gay Democrat, I in no way feel good about this happening. This story will be played in the mainstream media against our community and just further entrench the perception that gay men are pedophiles, even without Mark Foley having publicly stated he is gay.
I do not like the gloating here by liberal commenters, using this to slam the GOP. For that is not how it’s going to be played in the MSM. They will use it to slam the gay community, not the GOP.
Comment by Chase — September 30, 2006 @ 12:42 am - September 30, 2006
Maybe St. Petersburg Times just thought it was icky — or maybe they were waiting for more evidence to back up the story.
Or maybe there were trying to hurt the GOP in the election.
Who knows?
Comment by Bla — September 30, 2006 @ 12:52 am - September 30, 2006
A gay Republican… with an oxymoron like that no wonder they guy is a creepy child molesting hypocritical freak.
Like a gay Republican is going to be a well adjusted person… oh yeah.
Probably a self-loather too.
I’ve noticed that black Republicans can be pretty weird also.
Comment by David — September 30, 2006 @ 1:21 am - September 30, 2006
-For the reading-impaired, that means the GOP leaders didn’t know of any explicit messages because Foley lied to them. The parents apparently did not know of any such messages, nor did the boy apparently mention any.-
Rodney Alexander said he told the GOP leadership 10 or 11 months ago, but didn’t they say they only found out a few days ago?
Comment by Carl — September 30, 2006 @ 1:40 am - September 30, 2006
#4
*Still - if Foley was a stalker and used AOL to IM a lot of boys in the chat room, then it is excusable.
Regards,
Peter H. ”
Lol, another deeply repressed “gay Republcan”
Classic
Comment by David — September 30, 2006 @ 1:40 am - September 30, 2006
#70 by Chase
“This story will be played in the mainstream media against our community”
Chase, get a clue pal, this story will be used by the Republican BASE as “proof” that gay men are pedophiles.
Democrats are far more likely to understand that this is a aberration in the human pool, just as a straight person can be a pedophile.
I other words, Democrats generally can understand that these freaks are not something that is limited to the gay community.
To Republicans, it’s just biblical conformation of homo sin pal.
Comment by David — September 30, 2006 @ 1:54 am - September 30, 2006
FOX NEWS “Should Age of Consent be Lowered?”
Comment by David — September 30, 2006 @ 2:02 am - September 30, 2006
David, Rep. Foley was supportive of gay rights. He twice voted against the constititutional amendment to ban gay marriage and was co-sponsor to most every gay rights bill introduced in Congress. He was not an enemy to our community.
Comment by Chase — September 30, 2006 @ 2:13 am - September 30, 2006
#74: learn to read, please.
I quote :
#4 - Mea culpa. My next-to-last sentence should have said “INexcusable.”
If any of you think I would ever condone any kind of NAMBLA-type activity for anyone, you are wrong. There is a reason why it is considered an age of consent.
And Chase, you seem to be under the mistaken impression that David is rational. You should realize by now that the vast majority of gay Democrats base whether or not a person is pro- or anti-gay on political affiliation. That’s why a Foley is attacked as antigay, but Democrats who support state and Federal amendments stripping gays of rights are called “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 30, 2006 @ 2:23 am - September 30, 2006
“He twice voted against the constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage”
A constitutional amendment introduced by Democrats?
“…co-sponsor to most every gay rights bill introduced in Congress”
Gay rights bills introduced by Republicans?
Sorry to break it to you, but now he’s the poster child for the Republican base validating the “evils” the gay man and the danger of allowing homosexuals to be near children.
No offence buddy, but you are SERIOUSLY confused.
Comment by David — September 30, 2006 @ 2:24 am - September 30, 2006
LOL….let me remind you of what you gay Democrats consider to be “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”, David:
People who support state constitutional amendments stripping gays of rights
People who support the FMA
People who “share values” with antigay bigots like Pat Robertson
And what do Democrat lapdogs like you do? Shovel tens of millions of dollars to them and do whatever they say.
Thanks for demonstrating your hypocrisy.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 30, 2006 @ 2:32 am - September 30, 2006
Fwiw, I could not be a more straight male.
I’ve worked with gay men and have never had a problem with them.
I’m just pissed how Republicans treat people that are different as second (or lower) citizens in order to fire up their redneck Christian base.
Btw, being born a straight male, I can appreciate that being gay is no way a choice.
Comment by David — September 30, 2006 @ 2:34 am - September 30, 2006
#10
I wonder how the media would treat this if he were a dem…
Are you kidding? This would be a resume enhancer. The libs would circle the wagons and would do whatever possible to excuse it.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 30, 2006 @ 2:37 am - September 30, 2006
#80 from your link North Dallas Thirty
People who “share values” with antigay bigots like Pat Robertson
“He (Dean) said, “I’m a Democrat because of my values. My values include inclusiveness — they include not leaving more debt to our kids than we have ourselves. My values including wanting our values to drive our public policies. My values include not having kids going to bed hungry at night. Now those are values that I bet I share with the vast majority of evangelicals.”
Sound ok to me.
You got a problem with that quote pal?
Comment by David — September 30, 2006 @ 2:42 am - September 30, 2006
Like a gay Republican is going to be a well adjusted person… oh yeah.
Probably a self-loather too.
Actually, the gay Republicans I know are perfectly happy. Alternatively liberals, gay or straight, choose to wallow in victimhood, anger, rage, misery, hate etc. not to mention (apparently) ignorance. Now who’s “well adjusted”?
I’ve noticed that black Republicans can be pretty weird also.
What’s wrong? Did one tell you to clean your own damn house? They do tend to avoid stepping & fetching for you, don’t they? Nor are they content to live as a vicitm or have a dependency on liberals and Uncle Sugar.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 30, 2006 @ 2:44 am - September 30, 2006
You got a problem with that quote pal?
What, did you miss this?
He added, “The Democratic Party platform from 2004 says that marriage is between a man and a woman. That’s what it says.
And as for “sharing values”, Pat Robertson, for all his bigotry, has given literally millions of dollars to help in the fight against hunger and poverty.
Howard Dean claims he wants to help hungry children, but then advocates raising taxes on their parents, punishing the companies that give their parents jobs, and screaming about how the rich are evil while he and his fellow millionaire and billionaire Democrats hide their income in tax shelters so THEY don’t have to pay for their social welfare programs.
As soon as Dean directs his rhetoric against rich Democrats like himself and demand that they give up the lion’s share of their wealth to help the poor, then he might approach being less of a hypocrite.
I’m just pissed how Republicans treat people that are different as second (or lower) citizens in order to fire up their redneck Christian base.
But you clap and cheer when Democrats do it, as I pointed out. Indeed, you tried to spin Howard Dean’s public admission that he considers gays second-class citizens because of his religious beliefs as being pro-gay and gay-supportive.
You’re still an antigay bigot, David. You see gays as a population to be manipulated for your political ends, and you have no qualms whatsoever about treating us like dirt if it will get Democrats elected. That’s why you mock gays like myself, who point out what lying hypocrites you are, as being “self-loathing” — ironic, when your idea of a good gay is akin to a white plantation owner’s attitude towards a house slave.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 30, 2006 @ 3:04 am - September 30, 2006
The only thing that matters here is how universally bad it is for all gay men. This Foley jackass has provided more ammunition for those opposed to homosexuality on the grounds that gay men prey on children. It doesn’t matter if this idiot is a Republican or a Democrat, conservative or liberal, he’s made it worse for all of us and that should be the focus of your outrage. It will take quite a bit of effort to undue the damage that this fool has wrought.
Comment by DanielFTL — September 30, 2006 @ 3:14 am - September 30, 2006
Howard Dean claims he wants to help hungry children, but then advocates raising taxes on their parents, punishing the companies that give their