So..Foley has been "engaging" Pages since at least 2003! Who has known

[KoKo]

and for how long? There must be more to this and we have to hope it comes out. Why have the other Pages not spoken up...or did they and they were cautioned to remain silent. So many questions.
------------------


Josh Marshall made the distinction that the "I'M" goes back to 2003:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/010060.php

Foley Update: With the news evolving so quickly about what members of the House GOP leadership knew about the Foley scandal, another point hadn't become clear to me. Though I haven't seen the point made explicitly, it's clear from the late ABC News reports that there are multiple pages in question.


In this story at the ABC site, reporters write that "according to several former congressional pages, the congressman used the Internet to engage in sexually explicit exchanges."

There's another point too though. This all started to come out yesterday when ABC reported on a series of suggestive but not explicit emails between Foley and a House page. That appears to be the then-16 year old page who had been sponsored by Rep. Rodney Alexander (R-LA). Reportedly, that page became concerned about the suggestiveness of the emails, cut off communication and reported the emails to a member of Alexander's staff.

The graphic IM exchanges, which blew the story open this afternoon, are clearly from a minor who actively engaged with the congressman. So it seems clear it's a different page. The clincher is that that the published IM exchange is from 2003, two years earlier. So it's clear there are at least two different pages in question.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

1. You know, he really had me fooled

probably because he doesn't have the usual Republican bad toupe'.

[DainBramaged]

2. Hmmmmmm.Wonder if he needs a touPee elsewhere?

[TallahasseeGrannie]

3. ewwwwwwww

[TahitiNut]

4. How many (former) pages are keeping silent because of shame??

I have a hard time, perhaps unjustifiably(!), being confident that Foley limited his behavior to contact from a distance. It seems to me that such behavior, connected as it seems to be to the turn-on of 'taboo,' wouldn't escalate as the derived sense of arousal diminished due to it becoming banal.

This is, imho, the danger in having our sexual arousal hard-wired to our perception of it being 'taboo' or 'dirty' or 'forbidden.' That association guarantees that increasingly 'forbidden' activities are sought as the potency of the banal is diluted.


Far too many of us learn about sex in a stumbling and secretive way - to varying degrees aware of the 'forbidden' or 'dirty' aura surrounding sexual activity. For many of us, the turn-on gets hard-wired to the 'taboo' - where our arousal isn't from a sense of freedom and intimacy and positive vibes, but from some sense of 'wrongness.'

I think this can lead to some pretty destructive motivations. I think it can lead to people who want to ELEVATE the sense of 'wrongness' in order to heighten their own arousal. Thus, they (perhaps semi-unconsciously) openly advocate against all manner of sexual activities that they, themselves, privately regard as huge turn-ons. In a way, it's a kind of schizophrenia - convince that they're 'sinners' but entrapped in not wanting to give up the sexual arousal to which that's connected. "I'm a very bad boy! Spank me!" is a way I'd say is emblematic of what I'm talking about.

So, rather than actually reducing the scope of eroticism, these people are, in a very perverted way, increasing the scope and opportunity to feel turned on. Increasing the emphasis in religious ways is but a part of this, imho. It's a very clear explanation of why Foley was so 'dedicated' to legislative activities in this area.


It leads me to believe that far too many neoconservatives suffer from the "Please keep me from killing again!" (a cry for help?) syndrome. There's something very common among them in the mentality that they need Parental Authority (in the form of laws and God) to keep them from "sinning again." Merely labeling this as hypocrisy isn't really a path to understanding what we see. The inner conflicts in far, far too many of such people is just too easy to detect.

There's a second-stage factor, as well. Once finding themselves 'successful' in being denied (by some Paternal Authority) from going forth and sinning again (and getting the arousal and turn-on), it seems clear that there's a palpable resentment toward those who healthily engage in such relationships without guilt. At this point, it becomes a jihad to deny such freedoms to others as well. That's when we see anti-choice and anti-everything (including tobacco?) coalitions ... people whose mission in life seems to be centered on keeping others from enjoying that which they see as 'bad.'

[KoKo]

11. Interesting....would explain the obsession of these people with Clinton

and the "Gods, Guns and Law and Order Mentality" with a healthy dose of the BIBLE is as God wrote it. Fascination from the Old Testament with Bestiality, killing and persecution/sacrifice.

[TahitiNut]

15. Far too many of us don't seem to accept or assert self-control

We are far too prone to believe we're ruled by "inner demons" or other people than accept that we make our own choices, imho. For some strange reason, this has been a life-long interest of mine. When I was a teen-ager (or perhaps even before, I was puzzled by the frequently stated paradigm of "the emotional me" vs. "the thinking me." I noticed that people would say "I lost my temper" or "I let my emotions take over." It was as though they saw themselves as two beings - each in conflict with the other.

As long as I can remember, I've been self-aware. I've NEVER "lost" my temper. When I've responded angrily, it's been with an awareness, conscious that I was propelling my words with strong feelings and knowing that I OWNED those feelings, deliberately and knowingly. When in the "throes" of love-making, I've always been fully aware of my actions and behavior. I've never "lost" control - not even in Viet Nam. (Depression is another story.)

At the same time, I've never accepted the notion that anyone else "made me happy" or "made me sad" or "made me angry." I own those emotions. They're mine and I'm happy about that. Thus, I've also never taken any blame or responsibility for "making" anyone else happy, sad, angry, or whatever. (Perhaps this was a learned survival trait being brought up primarily by a mother who behaves like she truly regards herself as some kind of 'passenger' in her own person - wholly 'made' happy or 'made' sad by others. Yeah. She's a codependent personality. It took me some time to break some long-held habits, myself.)


I have the distinct impression that neoconservatives (at least the 'followers') are wholly and completely entrapped by the notion that their only approach to 'control' over their own emotions is to control what others do and say. The very source (as they see it) of their emotional well-being, and absence of same, is in the actions and words of others. Thus, in order to "feel good" they have to find some way of imposing their control over others. That's why they can't tolerate gays and gay marriage ... it's because the rewards of their own sex life and marriages are not under their control - and anything that's not consistent with how they think "things should be" is a threat.

These are easily threatened people! It takes no more than to enjoy life in ways they don't and independent of whether their opinion is supportive or not.

This, I believe, is part of the "hard-wiring" just like eroticism. It's a part of the psychological conditioning they've gotten since the day they were born or a result of some trauma that such conditioning failed to prepare them for.

It's sad, I think.

[KoKo]

19. As long as I've Lived...

I've never "gotten" the Power/Control thing....Never could..it's something absent in my being. I think that's why I'm always "outraged."

I've never figured out why I was born as a Cassandra...and could still manage to be "outraged" after all these years...when I should have probably taken "meds to cope" or dealt with it in the way "THEY SAY" we should all do that "third person" thingy.

I think there's something to be proud of for being very independent...but as I grow older...I think the PRICE PAID has been very high. I still think given the choices I had...I would have chosen to be a Cassandra. It's MY LOSS and I take the responsibility...but there are many tears along the way.. As Robert Frost said: "The Road Not Chosen"

Some of us COULD EASILY have taken the EASY WAY...:-( or :-)'s whichever way that plays out...

[Skidmore]

5. The man was in the House for 12 years. I'll wager that he

was finding victims in the DC area long before 2003. Maybe not from the page pool, but in broader DC. I'll bet there is much more to turn up on this creep.

[valerief]

6. I wonder how many former pages are going to get *disappeared* n/t

[BuyingThyme]

7. Tom DeLay sure knew.

http://www.dccc.org/news/foley_crony/

[TahitiNut]

8. Foley was one of the Strong-Arm enforcers in the wee hours ...

... of the morning in that INFAMOUS atrocity when the Prescription Drug Bill (?) was failing in the House and the voting was kept open for over three hours instead of the 15 or 30 minutes required by the (so-called) "rules."

[KoKo]

10. Yeah...noticed on his pre-scrub Site on Congress Web that he was one

of the supporters of Bush "Medicare Reform." Hell is too good for such like he...:puke:

[KoKo]

12. Ha! thanks Buying Thyme...Foley voted to weaken "House Ethics" rules

a snip from the DNC article you linked. Figures doesn't it. Helping DeLay while helping HIMSELF!
---------------------------


# Mark Foley voted to weaken the House Ethics rules in a move that many say served only to protect Tom DeLay. Recently, House Republicans including Foley voted to restore the House ethics process -- but only after an enormous public outcry .

# Tom DeLay has been admonished a record three times by the House Ethics Committee for his unethical behavior, and will likely face the committee yet again -- meanwhile, Mark Foley continues to stand by his leader. "While Congressman Mark Foley has lined up behind his ethically challenged leader, Tom DeLay, Florida families have had to line up for the most expensive gas ever," said Bill Burton, communications director of the DCCC. "It is long past time that Floridians had a Member of Congress who put their needs and their values in front of partisanship and support for the special interests. Mark Foley should spend less time fighting for Tom DeLay and more time fighting for Florida."

[KoKo]

9. Maybe that the MSM is only reporting about "One Page" when there are

others means they are leaving "room" for a few other "shoes to drop?"

Just so they can continue the story for RATINGS. :shrug:

[madrchsod]

13. many pages i think are afraid for many reasons

some may have jobs or other "gifts" that foley gave them,shame,or it wasn`t a big deal and they want to forget it. i`m wondering if he did have a physical sexual encounter with any of them....

[KoKo]

18. Most teens would be shocked to think a congressperson would do that..

one you are taught to respect.....I wonder if it's just that it's so hard to believe and the fear factor that you won't be believed if you tell.

I think of all those silent when they were molested by priests. For years and years keeping a silence... Awful.

[symbolman]

14. I know for a FACT that he was doing it BEFORE that

I went on the Scarborough show and debated this boy licker BEFORE that time, and I was told by a Lobbyist pal of my wife's that Foley liked BOYS and he liked them YOUNG.

Now if a Lobbyist knew that, a democrat, what did the ADMIN KNOW?

I was tempted to out this guy on the Scarborough show, and bit yards of tongue off, not saying anything, but I also didn't want to be sued by someone that powerful..

Interesting that Scarborough, and Limbaugh (the subject of the show), a man who MAY have murdered his lover, and a drug addict all like to HANG with a Pedophile, now THAT'S FAMILY VALUES.

Torture, Rape, Pedophilia, what a Platform. A crowd with Pitchforks and Torches needs to just start stringing these guys up from Lamposts all over Washington, and start over.

Wonder if I could be a witness. I knew, I'd been TOLD by an insider.

[KoKo]

17. I wonder, Symbolman...how many others have skeletons and that's why

the secret was kept. And, just how did Scarborough get his cushy job (his own MSNBC Show) just after he announced he wouldn't run for another term...and close to after the intern was found dead.

But then you know all that. What one wonders is "why now" with Foley since folks have known for years?

Thanks for that extra info. How many pages through the years...how many have kept silence out of fear. How many were turned off government service because of that.

[KoKo]

16. Ha Joint Repug Statement just released says "Pages" in the plural...

there's definitely more than one! Josh was correct...