Oct 15 2006
Frank Davies at the San Jose Mercury News has produced an interesting, first hand recollection of Mark Foley that also shows how people who intimately knew Foley had no idea he had predatory tendencies towards minors (I am being reasonably cautious in my representation of Foley’s acts until we get something more concrete, as is proper in our legal system). Davies paints a picture of a really interesting and engaging person in Foley, which is probably how he was able to hide his problems so well:
And there was a bonus in dealing with Mark Foley. He was a great storyteller and the life of the party, who unabashedly loved the limelight where politics and celebrity mix. He did dead-on impersonations of Bill Clinton and Arnold Schwarzenegger.
But in the end, we see the same pattern as has been presented by House leadership – the revelations of the hidden Foley were completely unexpected. And Davies admits that good will built up by Foley was useful in initially deflecting the natural concern one would have when faced with the initial, questionable emails:
Putting “gay” and “predator” in the same sentence reinforces ugly stereotypes, but it’s clear some journalists knew enough to pursue this story more vigorously. Foley had asked the former page for his picture, and the boy thought the e-mails were “sick.” Editors later conceded that because Foley was seen as a “good guy,” perhaps they gave him the benefit of the doubt and didn’t dig very deeply.
What is inconsistently wrong in this articles is the concept those attempting to ‘out’ Foley were Republicans. This and many other blogs have linked many times to Mike Rogers and John Aravosis personal claims and open threats to ‘out’ Foley and his Chief of Staff, Kirk Fordham. And as the Foleygate Timeline we generated illustrates, Rogers was predicting this scandal would hit around the same time the emails were being leaked to Democrat operatives in Oct-Nov 2005. So it was really far left liberal Democrats who were pushing to ‘out’ Foley and other gay Hill staffers. Of course there is another falsehood being reported here:
In the digital era, the story broke in a less traditional way. The first e-mails, posted on a “stop predators” blog, led to a story on ABC News that revealed the damaging messages that forced Foley’s resignation — all in less than 24 hours.
We now know that those versions of the emails were forged mock-ups, which any 6th grader could see when comparing them to the versions put out by CREW and ABC News. Why the media is not interested in how they were duped (again) by forged documents implies they do not care about the quality of their reporting. And this is further emphasized in the fact bloggers and some news outlets have been able to dig much deeper into the Democrat parties orchestration of this media frenzy. From the shopping of the emails to news outlets and democrat donors to the fact operatives admit Foley’s challenger had the emails and sat on them and other operatives admit they had planned to release this stink bomb closer to the elections, there is little doubt those who knew and held the evidence of a Foley problem were the media and the democrat operatives behind this scandal. But the media cannot face the fact they were duped and used. So they fail to report because it is too painful to face how easy it is to manipulate the press. Too bad, it is this fact that has made the press less credible than both parties.