The first question I'd like to ask in the middle of this firestorm arising from Rep Mark Foley's criminal internet solicitations, arises from his internal party's response to treat the matter as an election issue (and not an ethics or cirminal one) in that the matter was dropped in Tom Reynold's lap.
If the priority was damage control with a view to November, where was RNC director, Ken Mehlman? Greenwald smartly observed the other day that the scandal had effectively decapitated the House leadership (in that they are unable to freely promote re-election issues or attend rallies, etc etc.)
Well, what then of Ken Mehlman? (Hasn't he been the invisible man in all this??)
Now...onto the juicy observations - this SCANDAL is HUGE!!!
What do we know? Well, for one thing we know that former congressman Foley was unaware that Instant Message (IM) chats could be saved. Hence, he thought that his overly friendly e-mails (which were really just part of a screening effort) would in themselves always be able to be written off.
Let's examine, for a moment, the pages themselves. The young man who came forward (Page No 1) about the e-mails claimed to be shocked, horrified, sickened etc etc by them. But the e-mails were just "overly friendly". I suspect that Page No. 1 might well have been lured into an IM contact with Maf52 which is where things got a little more out of control - Page No 1 may not have saved the I.M.s either, and may have been reluctant to let people know that matters got out of hand. So his parents may have never known the extent of Foley's friendliness.
Any boy who succumbed to Foley's blandishments would be too ashamed to come forward - yet we see in the exchanges between Foley and, we'll call him Page No2, a certain intimacy that suggests real cybersex is, indeed, taking place.
Most damning though are the places where Foley seems clearly intent on setting up the quid pro quo of trips and dinners and "presents" all in the very clear hope that back in the hotel, after a few drinks, something (hehe) might happen.
This is pretty obviously solicitation. (There are live action cop shows in which Foley would have been chained and beaten by now) Foley makes reference to a trip to San Diego with one of the boys....hmmmmm.....Did I just hear the Mann Act being violated (interstate transport of minors for sexual purposes)...If so, this is without a doubt, a Federal Case.
While Foley might wish that these I.M.s be treated as some kind of aberration, Foley's longer behavior suggest that he conssciously cultivated the Pages specifically on the hunt for vulnerable boys he could attach to.
Many teenagers can be lured by a willy seducer who poses as a caring mentor. I think Foley was most cunning in his screening process. As such he would know that the boy's complicity, however confused or ill-motivated (Wow - you'd really buy me an X-Box?!", would be enough to keep what happened to themselves.
Foley's knows as well as anybody that teenage boys would be loath to admit that he had phone sex (or real-time sex) with any of them. You can bet that the back room chatter about Foley was that you had to be careful around him (wink-wink) but no one ever admitted to actually having allowed themselves to be used by Foley. It was something everyone knew about but no one ever had any specifics on.
The young men coming forward are, I think, exceptionally brave, or exceptionally vindicative or both. Someone like Foley knows that a lot of teens can be tempted by the right mix of flattery and bribery. No doubt they placed the highest pressures on boys who might have been gay themselves. It is a sad reality that the teen most preyed on by older gay men is usually gay himself. Being gay, the teen really has to fight the stigma of having brought the abuse on himself, and so he joins the wicked dance of Republican endorsed gayness
Foley and friends know this. Indeed, given the breadth of the cover-up, the fact that the House has never treated this as anything but something to be covered up tells me that they knew this was (and remains) about something bigger.
If the issue had been simply to throw Foley under the bus a few months ago, why wouldn't Hastart and co have done it?
There's only one reason and it's a tacit admission that the problem wasn't Foley or Foley alone. That to toss Foley would only stir a hornet's nest leaving it best to just stonewall those overly friendly e-mails.
For the young man comfortable enough to afford Foley and company more than IM access, there would be rewards. Indeed, provided one could keep it secret enough, it could be very profitable. (Hence you take the boy least likely to "snitch" - a gay one - pressure him into inappropriate situations and then reward him, turning him into a prostitute, a willing accomplice, overnight.)
When we look closer, we do begin to wonder if Foley shared his conquests, if willing enablers up and down the chain, also received access and dispensed largess. If the trade in "willing" young teens is just another side dish on the corruption buffet that is the modern Republican party.
Let me make it clear that the world view the Republican party endorses about gay people (ie if Mark Foley was publicly gay he would have been shown the door at long time ago) invariably creates this netherworld, this nexus of shame and power, in which "secrets" like this provide political leverage, in which individual "weakness" is just the gateway opportunity for an entire corrupt system.
A recent poll in the gay media determined that after San Francisco, the nation's two gayest cities were Austin, Texas and Washington DC. The truth is the modern Republican Party has never depended as much as it has today, on the input of activitists and party loyalists who are gay - gay in the Republican way, of course.
As began to be exposed during the Gannon episode, his mentor Bobby Eberle appeared to be smack dab in the middle of a lot of rather flamboyant Bush supporters and fundraisers back home in the great state of Texas.
At any rate, the question remains why wasn't Foley just slapped into line at the outset? As I've said the first thought is that the pattern and network was broad enough that any attempt to discipline Foley might open a bigger can of worms. The Foley matter was hushed up, therefore, not only to protect Foley, but, more importantly, to protect other, even more prominet members of the party. Of the many reasons why they covered up, that's the only one that makes real sense in damage limitation terms.
(Still no word from Ken Mehlman?)
The second, even more chilling, thought is that Foley's protection was doubly ensured, not simply because a few other members/lobbyists/activists were also taking Pages to dinner or sending overly friendly e-mails BUT because Foley and his enablers were also procuring boys for other members.
If you understand the protocals of compromise, you'd know that the servicing of your rivals' or your superior's weaknesses is the first step to getting ahead. The art of compromise is most often exercised among "friends" and if successfully accomplished the individual might not even realise that they have been compromised. (They rarely do - until the chit comes in for the return favor - and even then they sometimes don't - still happy to play the fiction of being friends or colleagues)
When I say that key boys can be rewarded with extraordinary favours, I'm often asked to give examples....
Hmmm - a timely appointment or promotion?
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/...
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/...
Jeff Trandahl, as you can see by the photo is an allright looking young man who could, without doubt, cause many a heart to flutter.
He decided to leave the job as House Clerk in September, 2005, when Foley's overly friendly e-mails first came to the attention of the leadership.
He has since become Executive Director of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation.
Now, color me crazy, but here's my take: Trandahl freaked once he heard that parents had complained about Foley. He probably knew the whole story (was he one of the favoured boys himself?) and just freaked. The leadership, on the other hand, assessed that the parents could be molified...(And, remember, I assume that their son, Page No 1 had also received IM approaches from Foley, but had no saved record of them and didn't want to admit of letting things go that far - even though the "overly friendly" e-mails were enough to have him screaming bloody murder.)
Trandahl wanted out. He was shown a door upwards to exit. The leadership had some kind of discussion with the parents. We have no idea how easily they were persuaded to let things lie. ("If this goes to court, it will do terrible things to your son - we'll take care of it and can assure you that your son will never be contacted again.")
I have long said that the gay thing goes right to the heart of the Bush presidency because of three factors - one, they have used the issue of sexuality to divide and distract americans from important policy issues - two, they have used morality to divide and distract americans from important policy issues and, most importantly, three) They are a shower of Tartuffes, whose venalities and hypocrisies would make a Bible-Believing Christian blush and stay home on election day.
Three, again, is that they are both queer and cynically amoral opportunists in the same breath
This is the gayest administration in history. And they're all gay in the Republican way - "frat house scandal and blackmail - but it's all just between us guys, right???" - A great big daisy chain of assignations, dirty truths and leveraged intimacies...
Is it time to look closer at Washington's coterie of kept boys? Is it time to remember Jeff Gannon?
If one wishes to know the true meaning of the Foley/Page scandal, you need to look higher up in the food chain.
SUMMARY
It wasn't Foley that was being protected. It was a can of worms they thought could be sat on. The inside of the can is still struggling to get out.
As a middle aged gay man, I want to see them exposed. I know that it will stir a lot of anti-gay ignorance as the Christian Right goes haywire - but, I figure, that the anti-gay types were with that Team to begin with.
I hate the sub-culture of homosexuality that people like George Bush and his allies endorse - the (to quote that chesnut, Boys in the Band) "Boy, I was so drunk last night I don't remember a thing") wing.
Interesting how all the Republicans, from former mayor Jim West (Is that right??) to Mark Foley claim it was the bottle that turned them into child molesters.
I remember some years ago, G W Bush (who manges to conflate all the current gossipy GOP horror stories - having both been a cheerleader at Andover (a good equivalent of the Congressional Page system as we now understand it) AND a student who kept the Confederate Stars and Bars in his dorm room during the height of the civil rights rights (just like George Allen!!)
GWBush said when at first decrying the calls for a constitutional amendment barring same-sex marriage (sorry no link here yet but it's there) "We are all sinners"
I thought the use of the word sinners telling - as if George's own battle with drink and other inner demons - which was resolved, his PR machine keeps telling us by a turning to the god of the Southern Baptists - was the template.
Had George, likewise, faced his own sexuality down by his open appeal to the Baptist Jesus?
When George said, "We are all sinners" was he opening his own wormy can of homosexuals anonymous?
Okay, promotions and advancements....
GAY GOSSIP
Although gays are often discret with outsiders, inside info among themselves is stock in trade. (Again, this are Republican gays - the ones that want to keep the 1950s subculture alive and kicking) Gossip, gay gossip, tends to pretty reliable. Gossip devalues in repitition, but gay culture - which values the ripeness of gossip - can spread it far quicker in a far less period of time - tends also, on record, to be more reliable. Again, its a question of degrees.
I'd bet that more gay americans had heard of Mark Foley prior to this scandal than other americans, full stop. (As a % of the over all group) Gay Americans knew Foley was gay, just like they consider the homosexuality of several other key Republicans open secrets.
This goes right to the top.
Ask yourself, what legislative achievement had turned Foley into leadership material in the first place? (And Foley was a whip, he was a higher up in the party)
Was it because of his policy on teenage boys? (Rather like GOP appointments to the EPA, don't you think?)
Oh, okay, so Foley was up and coming in the party becuase of the internet sex crimes legislation he helped pass.....that's it?
(Still no word from Ken Mehlman? Poor thing. Must be taking a powder.)
APOLOGY
You must understand , that the Rovian school of politics demands that every ounce of damage be squeezed from the carcass of Mark Foley....
So, am I the only person who remembers the President complimenting the Canadian PM's personal assistant, Scott Reid, on having a pretty face?
Or thinks odd of the fact that the President's former bestest friend and roomate at prep school was appointed Ambassador to Poland just in time to get him away from any 2004 election cameras?
Or, even more recently, the oddness of Bush's own personal best boy getting a spot in Harvard's covetted MBA program without a BA of his own.....(DUH - how is that even possible????) And remember, this was a young man that Bush had personally screened for the job and had met, ostensibly, when the young man was dating one of his twin daughters....
A lot of right thinking people worry that this could be an anti-gay witch hunt - as a gay person I say that the anti-gay shit will always be with us - that it is more important to expose the hypocrisy NOW .....
And, of course, to depress the Christian eright's enthusiasm for Karl Rove's new and improved Republicanism - which is the same thing - which means, I guess, that even Karl should meet up with his wife and kid sometime soon for a photo-op.
BTW again - among a certain coterie of gay gossips, the suggestions are not merely suggestive, they are taken as gospel. Since Ann Richards died people seem to going out on a limb about certain thngs that might have happened back then. Foley's fuck-ups (F.U.) do expose exactly what the leadership feared even a more subtle approach might have caused.....
THIS IS A CAN OF WORMS.....
(This was my first diary, so I know some people will take it as a Rovian plant - to try and sucker the dems into some kind of accomodation of gay bashing...
No, just me connecting the I.M.s.
I realise I go a bit on a limb, but that shouldn't discredit my immediate observations...
Anyway, hope it provokes a good food fight