Foley told lover: I don’t shtup pages; Update: Jim Kolbe knew since 2000?
posted at 9:08 pm on October 8, 2006 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
He’s principled about these things. Sure, he’ll tell a 17-year-old he’d like to slip his boxers off. But actually slip his boxers off?
No way. What do you think he is, some kind of perv?
A former House page says he had sex with then-Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.) after receiving explicit e-mails in which the congressman described assessing the sexual orientation and physical attributes of underage pages but waiting until later to make direct advances…
The former page, who agreed to discuss his relationship with Foley with the Los Angeles Times on the condition that he not be identified, said his electronic correspondence with Foley began after he finished the respected Capitol Hill page program for high school juniors. His sexual encounter was in the fall of 2000, he said. At the time, he was 21 and a graduate of a rural Northeastern college.
“I always knew you were a player but I don’t fool around with pages,” declared one instant message from Maf54, a screen name Foley used in exchanges that have become public involving male former pages…
[T]he former page’s exchanges with Foley offer a glimpse of possible predatory behavior by the congressman as he assessed male teenagers assigned as House errand-runners.
Says pollster Frank Luntz, these are not your father’s older brother’s Republicans.
Update: Foley’s got the cover of the new issue of Newsweek:
Foley was sexually active in Washington, according to a gay Republican who declined to be identified discussing Foley’s private life. Because he had a longtime partner, he told a friend, he preferred to have affairs with men who also had boyfriends. That way, he explained, they both had something to lose. Foley jokingly described this practice as “mutually assured destruction,” said this friend.
Foley was looked after, at least to a degree, by Kirk Fordham, who ran Foley’s first campaign and came to Washington as his chief of staff. Fordham, who is openly gay, has said he warned Foley not to flirt too openly. If Fordham is to be believed, Foley began showing undue interest in congressional pages as early as 2001…
The e-mails from Foley to the page did not go away. They began showing up in newsrooms—at the St. Petersburg Times and The Miami Herald in Florida and some Washington news organizations. It is not clear how they got there. (A St. Petersburg Times editor told NEWSWEEK that the paper received the e-mails from a source in Alexander’s office. The congressman’s office did not return calls.)
Fordham is due to testify before the House Ethics Committee this week.
Update: Hastert was scheduled to appear at a fundraiser in New York City later this month. He’s now been unscheduled.
Update: WaPo, page A01, tomorrow:
Another Republican congressman knew of disgraced former representative Mark Foley’s inappropriate Internet exchanges as far back as 2000 and personally confronted Foley about his communications.
A spokeswoman for Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-Ariz.) confirmed yesterday that a former page showed the congressman Internet messages that had made the youth feel uncomfortable with the direction Foley (R-Fla.) was taking their e-mail relationship…
A source with direct knowledge of Kolbe’s involvement said the messages shared with Kolbe were sexually explicit, and he read the contents to The Washington Post under condition that they are not reprinted. But Cline denied the source’s characterization, saying only that the messages had made the former page feel uncomfortable. Nevertheless, she said, “corrective action” was taken. Cline said she still has not yet determined whether that action went beyond Kolbe’s confrontation with Foley.
Kolbe is the only openly gay Republican in Congress, so make as much or as little of that as you like.
Update: Evangelicals are staying the course, but what about independents?
You must be logged in to post a comment.

















Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Foley schmoley! There’s one story in the news right now that’s WAAAAY more important … but I won’t mention what it is ’cause I don’t want Bryan to ban me … bwah-hahahahaaaaaa
Tony737 on October 8, 2006 at 9:29 PM
Why is this even a story? The dude was 21! Gay Pride!
SouthernGent on October 8, 2006 at 9:45 PM
Agree. Why do DEM-MSM work for them?
There’s plenty of time left for the capitulation-minded.
Stephen M on October 8, 2006 at 10:01 PM
The
RepublicanDemocrat Frank Luntz’s analysis makes no sense:So he thinks conservatives are now going to vote Democratic because of these issues? Vote for Democrats to secure the border, control spending, and go after terrorists because one congressman had an affair with a 21-year-old man? What a laugh! The fact that Foley is still a story with the MSM shows that the Dems are the homophobic party, not the Republicans.
januarius on October 8, 2006 at 10:15 PM
I’m the first to say I don’t believe in homosexuality, and don’t even like using that word because it legitimizes it, and I’m also the first to say Foley is a sicko and rightfully out of Congress… But I do have to say, AP, that that opening paragraph is rather misleading, no? He didn’t “slip the boxers” off of a 17 year old (to our knowledge), he played bone smuggler with a misguided 21-year-old.
I know your intention wasn’t to mislead, but rather write a funny opening to a post on the recent news that Foley did get down with a former page, but had I not blogged this early this morning and was skimming posts on my favorite blogs, I might have seen that and thought Foley did have sex with a 17 year old page.
RightWinged on October 8, 2006 at 10:26 PM
Enough already. Geez…
There’s many more important things to consider…
tele64 on October 8, 2006 at 10:54 PM
I am SICK to my teeth with this story! He resigned and now they want MORE resignations.
The salactiousness of the media would NOT be happening IF Foley were a Democrat.
labwrs on October 8, 2006 at 11:07 PM
FOLEY SCANDAL: DC affair.
Dr. Charles G. Waugh on October 9, 2006 at 12:44 AM
Headline should have been “Foley Doesn’t Shtup to Conquer.”
Dr. Charles G. Waugh on October 9, 2006 at 3:13 AM
Allah—The proper Amish spelling for the word is “SHTOOP.”
pjcomix on October 9, 2006 at 9:36 AM
Bone smuggler? Is that like “hide the salami”?
This is just another beautiful Fall/Spring love affair. The libs are just spewing all this hate speech. Where are all the gay rights groups screaming for justice? They want gay marriage but no bone smuggling on Capital Hill? Huh?
Hening on October 9, 2006 at 10:58 AM
What? Foley is homosexual? That does it! After 30 years of voting a straight Republican ticket how can I ever vote Republican again? Oh, the shame of it all… We’ve finally been destroyed as a political party for all time. Woe is me…
Kevin R on October 9, 2006 at 12:37 PM
This language comes from the LA Times, but I’ve seen it in use elsewhere in connection with Foley. This is nonsense in anyone’s mouth, unless Foley was lying in wait to kill pages and eat them. But by all accounts, Foley didn’t want to eat Ganymede; he just wanted to drink Ganymede’s ambrosia.
Kralizec on October 9, 2006 at 12:38 PM
Yes – Bone smuggling = hiding the salami.
RightWinged on October 9, 2006 at 1:06 PM
It is time to force the liberals to put up or shut up. Since this was such a heinous crime against humanity, a congressman with some guts needs to present a motion for an immediate floor vote on a resolution of this nature:
That adult persons in positions of authority be subjected to official censure, criminal/civil prosecution, and/or any other recourse available as a result of committing any coercive, suggestive, or overtly sexual act with a younger person over whom they bear authority. That such acts shall include, but not be limited to, direct personal contact, electronic communications of any form, or messages delivered through an intermediate party. That such acts shall not distinguish between minors, or persons who have reached the locally legal age of majority for consent in such matters, nor distinguish between unwanted, or consensual acts.
In case anyone thinks I am defending Foley, not a chance. He is gone as he should be. Nor am I defending anyone who enabled his behavior to continue after coming to light.
The fact is, for the pages involved to have made these communications with him, they must have shared something of his interest. So far not one example of a page telling Foley to take a hike has been exposed. So, given that the age of consent in the D.C. area is 16 (an amazingly creepy fact on its own), that the “victims” appear to have been compliant in the behavior (unless they were asked to “punk” Foley for just such an occurence), and that there is no evidence that Foley has ever made physical contact with a minor, there isn’t an awful lot of “there” there. Except that he’s a creep, and he’s gone, and good riddance.
But if it was really that bad, then it should be viewed as that bad no matter who does it to whom, no matter where, and no matter what organization it refers to. If potentially predatory homosexuals taking an “overfriendly” interest in younger males is the sickest behavior imaginable, then don’t just SAY SO, DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. I dare you.
Freelancer on October 9, 2006 at 4:40 PM
BTW, John Fund has a good write today in the WSJ.
That link will be to the current column each week, but it’s always possible to visit each commentator’s archive on WSJ.com
Freelancer on October 9, 2006 at 4:44 PM
Comment pages: