OxBlog

# Posted 4:00 PM by Ariel David Adesnik

WHAT KIND OF G.O.P. HACK WOULD DOWNPLAY FOLEY'S ABUSE? I don't know, but Nation columnist Katha Pollitt seems glad to do the Foley the favor:

Did Mark Foley really deserve to be drawn and quartered for engaging in lubricious instant messaging with male former Congressional pages?...

Given that by law Senate pages must be 16 years old or more, and that 16 is the legal age of consent in Washington (and most states), to call him a "child molester" (Tucker Carlson on MSNBC) and "child predator" (various pundits) seems rather severe.

Impressively, Pollitt then has the chutzpah to criticize Republicans for making light of Foley's behavior:

Unlike White House press secretary Tony Snow ("naughty e-mails"), I don't minimize Foley's behavior. It's wrong for middle-aged men to come on to teenagers, even if they're of legal age and even if, as some of the IM exchanges suggest, the young person seems willing to play.

Finally, here's the key insight Pollitt has to offer:

Men with power: It's not a pretty sight.

Ahh, nuance.

(14) opinions -- Add your opinion

Comments:

The age of consent is 16? In another twenty years they could have gotten married. Wakka Wakka.

# posted by

Anonymous : 10:44 PM

WHAT KIND OF G.O.P. HACK WOULD DOWNPLAY FOLEY'S ABUSE?

I think that you answered your own question. Former Fox News commentator and current eponymously named White House Press Secretary Tony Snow said that Republican Congressman Foley's IMs were "Simply naughty emails."

But why go after the mouthpiece of the president for defending Foley when you can go after a writer for The Nation for not criticizing Foley in exactly the right way?

# posted by

Anonymous : 2:18 PM

Again, nuance. I criticize Pollitt for playing down Foley's abuse. I include a quotation in which Snow plays down Foley's abuse. What do you think my position on Foley is?

And why did I criticize Pollitt? Well, I like to read The Nation to get a very different perspective from my own. When that perspective happens to be ridiculous, I blog about it.

# posted by

Ariel David Adesnik : 6:04 PM

Final sentence in first graf should read: "What do you think my position on Snow is?"

# posted by

Ariel David Adesnik : 6:05 PM

What do you think Pollitt's position on Foley is?

She asks a hypothetical.
She makes a legal observation.
She points out that Foley's critics might be overstating their cases.
She contrasts herself with Snow.

Nothing earth shattering here.

In your search for nuance are you sure you read her plain meaning correctly?

That said, I'm impressed that you can read The Nation at all. For my part, I just can't bring myself to read The Weekly Standard. The whole Rupert Murdoch thing.

# posted by

Anonymous : 2:27 AM

There is a tactic in certain kinds of demagoguery of speaking a certain word or phrase, or referring to a situation in terms of such horror--with liberal use of scare quotes--as to hide the fact that there isn't much there there.

This is showing in Foley's case.

He was known to be overly friendly with pages, but no known evidence shows him being illegal or sexual with any of them.

The nasty bits are IMs, which are a conversation, not a one-way message in e-mail. The other party could have dropped it any time he wanted. The other party at the time being over age and not a page.

So Foley is scum. So far, he hasn't been shown to have committed a crime, or even to have been sexual even with ex-pages whose acquaintance he made while they were in DC.

There are reports which may or may not be confirmed and expanded, that a kind of lavendar mafia, bipartisan, of representatives and staffers, hid his intereste in pages from the leadership. If that's confirmed, won't that be a hoot.

In the meantime, the dems look like the party of homophobia.
All of a sudden, they're concerned about the kind of influences adolescents are exposed to.

# posted by

Anonymous : 4:31 PM

He was known to be overly friendly with pages, but no known evidence shows him being illegal or sexual with any of them.

Actually, Foley was really friendly with pages and interns. Really, really friendly.

In the meantime, the dems look like the party of homophobia.

Right, and Republicans are the big-closet party.

# posted by

Anonymous : 5:16 PM

Anon.

Just as I said. The guy wasn't a page and he was adult.

You have a problem with sexual expression? You an uptight blue-nose?

The dems, who didn't think oral sex was sex, now think electronic chat about sex is sex.

I don't know who they think they're fooling.

Possibly all those who were supposed to vote dem when Kerry's campaign outed the Cheney kid.

# posted by

Anonymous : 10:44 AM

You have a problem with sexual expression?

No sir, I really don't. But your Dear Leader apparently does.

You an uptight blue-nose?

Correct. It goes well with my gold facepaint that I only wear on certain fall Saturdays.

And Kerry's campaign didn't out Mary Cheney as a lesbian. She was after all, working for Coors as a gay and lesbian outreach coordinator at the time.

# posted by

Anonymous : 3:32 PM

Right, again, anon.

Which is why the Kerry campaign acted as if it were news the electorate needed to know.

I don't see what you're complaining about when two adults have sex. Aren't you a liberal on these things?

# posted by

Anonymous : 4:28 PM

Which is why the Kerry campaign acted as if it were news the electorate needed to know.

Given what Bush-Cheney was saying about family 'values' it was something the electorate needed to know.

I don't see what you're complaining about when two adults have sex. Aren't you a liberal on these things?

Very liberal on those things. If an openly-Republican Congressman wants to have sex, that's fine with me. But preying on subordinate minors is another matter altogether, especially while co-chairing the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children. Also a problem is the hypocrisy of voting for the Defense of Marriage Act when you're gay.

# posted by

Anonymous : 5:24 PM

Anon.

It seems the republicans' family value is they love their families, regardless of whatever the dems think is damning. I believe that was the lesson the electorate took from that sorry episode.

# posted by

Anonymous : 8:28 PM

Well good then. It sounds like a useful and necessary lesson for Republicans.

# posted by

Anonymous : 12:39 AM

Yeah, anon.

And the electorate got a good look at the dems' family values.

"Nice family you got there. Shame if something happened to it."

# posted by

Anonymous : 8:17 AM