Republican Pedophile Scandal: 11 Years Of Foley

12:05 am EST October 4th, 2006 | Republicans | 6 Comments

This just keeps getting creepier.

"Mark Foley knew that he could get away with this type of behavior with male pages because he was a congressman," Beck-Heyman said. "But many people on Capitol Hill, including many high-level Republican staffers and members, have known for over 11 years about what was going on and chose to do nothing."

Related Posts

  • No Related Post
«
»

6 Responses to “Republican Pedophile Scandal: 11 Years Of Foley”

  1. Diamond LeGrande says:
    October 4, 2006 at 7:12 am

    Eleven years ago? See, it is all Clinton’s fault!

  2. S says:
    October 4, 2006 at 10:11 am

    Where on earth are Dugger, Jay and SaveFarris? Surely they have a perfectly reasonable explanation for this?

  3. Marty says:
    October 4, 2006 at 12:13 pm

    I’m a little confused here. I mean, Foley is a scumbag and I’m glad he resigned. But explain how, other than the misnomered “pedophile” talking point, this helps Democrats when it is discovered that senior Democratic leadership and the DCCC knew about this for months (and some since 2004) and sat on it until now a month before an election?
    Why didn’t they protect the “children” rather than holding off until just before the election.

    And how does this compare to Gerry Studds? At least scumbag Foley had the honor to resign. Studds stuck around for five more terms after having sex with the lads.

  4. Rex Mundane says:
    October 4, 2006 at 1:09 pm

    Youre saying the democrats knew about Foley in 2004 and avoided bringing it up to use in an election… and that that election wasnt the one actually held in 2004? Youre actually trying to blame democrats for this? They didnt even break the story or push it, It was the right, shipdit.
    Oh, and how it helps democrats, I think, is that it shows how far republican politicians are willing to go to protect their own at the expense of the people they ostensibly serve. “We cant let it get out that he’s diddling the kinder, so lets make sure he’s discreet instead of actually stopping him from diddling the kinder.”

  5. BD says:
    October 4, 2006 at 1:28 pm

    Marty’s post reminds me of the defense the conservatives attempted with Abramoff. “Surely one Democrat possibly in bed with Abramoff…I know he’s around here somewhere…is just as bad, if not worse, than the dozen or so Republicans who were so deep into him they could play checkers on his pancreas.”

    Gerry Studds didn’t just stick around, he was “re-elected.” He took his chances with the voters, and the voters let him stay.

    So maybe Foley should also have stayed on the ballot. We can let the electorate decide if there’s any difference between Studds and Foley.

  6. Marty says:
    October 5, 2006 at 10:09 am

    Ah- So Democrats re-elect and/or pardon their “pedophiles.”

    I get it.