I would be remiss...

If I said nothing. He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named is having a cumfest over on his blog, as if he had anything to do with reporting the allegations, except for after the fact.

Of course, assuming all reported items are true, he's a dick. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

Personally, I think he gave up without a fight, and too soon. So far, according to what has been reported, he -actually- did nothing legally wrong.

But, I have to ask the question. Would this have been such a big deal if he were a Democrat and admitted to what he did wrong? Or, for that matter, denied it, even thought he was lying?

I don't think so.

Let me remind you that, when you are watching NBC's "Dateline - To Catch a Predator" show, they ask the "perpetrator" to bring something. Jello, Beer, Vodka, whatever. It proves the intent to molest.

This did NOT occur in the case of Mark Foley. And, in fact, he never touched the 16 year old.

I read a response to a post over at Towelroad that stuck a chord:

My, my, my, but this is a complicated one. Not just a "bomb," but one that is going to have a great deal of collateral damage beyond its target. While happy to see Republican numbers reduced in any case, the circumstances here may not be worth the cost. First, trying to get ABC and Americans generally to understand the difference between a CHILD stalker/pedophile and a hebephiliac or ephebophiliac [attracted to those between 13 & 18] is impossible. Or that the pages were apparently past the age of consent, even if they had no interest in doing consenting to anything with Foley. Regardless, is Foley, in fact, an ephebophiliac or just a chicken queen or are they one and the same? Is this a case of "sick" or just "ick"? Is he guilty of anything besides hypocrisy and self-destructively bad judgement, even if they were interested in him. The latter would be irrelevant to Americans as straight men can pursue much younger women but gay men are dangerous perverts if interested in much younger men. See Christopher Isherwood...

Further, except in terms of House majority rule, which IS very important, have we thrown out a moderate Republican vis-a-vis gay rights for a Democrate of unknown beliefs. I had paid no attention to this race until now, but was shocked to discover that Foley's opponent was a Republican himself until convinced by Rahm Emmanuel to switch parties to run against Foley. I can find little about his position on gay issues except for publically criticizing Bush for trying "to divide the nation" over gay marriage AND that Mahoney clearly has been gay baiting Foley. Make no mistake: this scandal will hurt gays more than the GOP by reinforcing the idea that we are all child molestors just waiting to pounce. And Mahoney, whether or not he was involved in the exposure of the e-mails, is doing US no good by feeding on the corpse of Foley's career in the name of protecting children.

From Daily Kos:
Mon Sep 04, 2006 at 08:28:13 PM PDT
What, pray tell, is Rep. Mark Foley's (R-FL) "dirty little secret"? To hear his Democratic challenger Tim Mahoney tell it, it's the fact that Foley is a Republican who campaigns to the left of his caucus to confuse people into thinking he's a Democrat. But that's not what Mahoney's language, specifically using the phrase "dirty little secret," is meant to evoke. Indeed, Mahoney is using coded language that's only barely code for anyone who's been living in South Florida for the last 12 years of Foley's tenure. Foley is gay, despite having never acknowledged as much publicly, and Mahoney's despicable gay-baiting ought to be denounced up and down this community, if not by the Democratic caucus itself.
Beyondo98's diary :: ::

It would be one thing if Foley were hypocritical on this issue, but his 'yes' vote on the DOMA notwithstanding (people, please remember Clinton signed that trash into law), he's the most pro-gay member of the GOP caucus, maintains a strict non-discrimination policy, voted against the gay marriage ban, and has been a sensible voice in the GOP caucus on the issue of fighting AIDS. His contribution to the GOP majority is abhorrent, but he does NOT deserve to be the target of coded hate speech.

I'm not writing this with Sista Soulja-esque intentions. I'm writing this because Foley is a decent man despite his party affiliation; because his sexuality should not make any difference; and because campaign tactics like this demean Democrats and threaten progressivism nationally. What difference is there between 'Macaca' Allen and gay-baiting Mahoney when each is playing on the xenophobic fears on the Republican electorate to either increase or depress GOP turnout? This is the same thing a primary opponent of Foley's tried to pull back in 1994--proof enough that Mahoney's tactic is reprehensible--to his own detriment even among GOP voters."

Posted by: Leland | Sep 29, 2006 7:21:07 PM

(All misspellings and gramatical errors belong to the author, not me.)