Yet more on Foley: the anti-gay, anti-page spin

Tuesday, October 03, 2006 at 04:35 PM

If you had any doubts remaining about the state of ethics in public life and society in general, I think the questions have been answered...

How's this for twisting a story?

1. Newt the Hoot claims that fear of gays kept the Foley story from being investigated

Strange as that sounds, here's the poop according to Gingrich, as he responds to a question about why Foley was allowed to remain in the House leadership after the first e-mail surfaced:

<blockindent>Well, you could have second thoughts about it, but I think had they overly aggressively reacted to the initial round, they would also have been accused of gay bashing. I mean, the original notes had no sexual innuendo and the parents did not want any action taken.</blockindent>

When Fox's Chris Wallace asked how this could be seen as gay bashing, we get this from the Newt:

<blockindent>Because it was a male-male relationship. And they had no -- there was no proof, there was nothing that I know of in that initial round that would have led you to say in a normal circumstance that this is a predatory person.</blockindent>

The fear that they would be seen as anti-gay, and attacked by gay advocacy groups, was also raised over the weekend by Tony Perkins from the Family Research Council.

Don't you love it?  The Republicans, who sought a Constitutional Amendment prohibiting gay marriage, who cater to the religious right which bashes gays every day in every way, were afraid to be seen as anti-gay, so they let a possible pederast continue to run their efforts to protect children.  Meanwhile, back on earth...

2. Tony Perkins claims the "real issue" in the Foley case is the connection between homosexuality and child abuse

Apparently not content to ride Gingrich's coattails, Perkins also has taken to claiming that:

Perkins noted that Foley - an unmarried 52-year-old representative - has always refused to answer questions about his sexual orientation, but the release of Foley's messages to teenage male pages now makes it clear that "Foley is a homosexual with a particular attraction to underage boys."

"While pro-homosexual activists like to claim that pedophilia is a completely distinct orientation from homosexuality, evidence shows a disproportionate overlap between the two," Perkins said.

"Although almost all child molesters are male and less than 3 percent of men are homosexual, about a third of all child sex abuse cases involve men molesting boys -- and in one study, 86% of such men identified themselves as homosexual or bisexual," Foley said.

"Ignoring this reality got the Catholic Church into trouble over abusive priests, and now it is doing the same to the House GOP leadership....

Never let your agenda go unpushed, as they say.  I wonder how the Log Cabin Republicans (gas who support the Repub party) live with themselves when they read this.  I wonder the same about the many elected Republicans who are desperately hiding their sexual orientation.

3. Matt Drudge has the gall to say the pages were "egging the Congressman on!"

According to a blogger's transcript of Druge, the Drudgeon says:

And if anything, these kids are less innocent -- these 16 and 17 year-old beasts...and I've seen what they're doing on YouTube and I've seen what they're doing all over the internet -- oh yeah -- you just have to tune into any part of their pop culture.  You're not going to tell me these are innocent babies.  Have you read the transcripts that ABC posted going into the weekend of these instant messages, back and forth?  The kids are egging the Congressman on!  The kids are trying to get this out of him.  We haven't got the whole story on this.
You could say "well Drudge, it's abuse of power, a congressman abusing these impressionable, young 17 year-old beasts, talking about their sex lives with a grown man, on the internet."  Because you have to remember, those of us who have seen some of the transcripts of these nasty instant messages.  This was two ways, ladies and gentlemen.  These kids were playing Foley for everything he was worth.   Oh yeah.  Oh, I haven't...they were talking about how many times they'd masturbated, how many times they'd done it with their girlfriends this weekend...all these things and these "innocent children."  And this "poor" congressman sitting there typing, "oh am I going to get any," you know?

Yeah, Drudgeoid, just wait, we'll find out this was all a plot by the kids to get rich and/or famous.  Talk about a blatant appeal to the far right loons who buy any conspiracy you feed them as long as it has one or more of the following in it: gay, Clinton, FDR, abortion, devil, God, taxes, Socialism...

4. Fox's Gibson tries the "Dems do it, too" approach

John Gibson, who could pass any sanity test that Coulter could pass, took the opportunity to get Fox viewers to think that Foley's actions are similar to what Dems have done...but apparently without naming the Dems to whom he was referring! From Stephen Elliot's blog:

Worse is the host of the show, John Gibson, trying to link Foley's actions to the Democratic Party.

"Steve, are you saying that since there are a couple of Democrats who've admitted to more or less the same thing that Foley should've stayed on the ballot? Foley should've run?"

To the best of my knowledge he's referring to scandals over twenty years old, but I'm not really sure. At any rate, linking a Republican Congressman, protected by the Republican Party, to the Democrats whose only member on the Congressional Page committee was not given the information on Mark Foley, would be ridiculous coming from Coulter. When it comes from the host of the show it tells you everything you need to know about how Fox is more concerned with protecting the Republican Party then the serious issue of sexual predators preying on our children.

Ahh, it's good to be back from a week of the ocean, beaches, waves crashing on rocks, and places that are dog-friendly.  I really missed the smell of political bullshit, the texture of a logical twist, and the feeling that we've sunk so low as a society that we're beyond the point of no return.