Oct 15 2006

A News Reporter Comes Out On Foley

Published by at 9:07 am under All General Discussions,Foleygate

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:

And then last year, some of my colleagues at the Herald were given the initial, “overly friendly” e-mails Foley sent to a former page. The St. Petersburg Times and Harper’s magazine had the same information. The publications did some digging, but it did not yield much more — certainly not the explicit sexual messages revealed later. Editors decided not to go with a story based only on e-mails whose meaning, as Herald editor Tom Fiedler put it, was “ambiguous.”

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.

8 responses so far

8 Responses to “A News Reporter Comes Out On Foley”

  1. DaleinAtlanta says:

    AJ: this whole situation is obvious, and ridiculous!

    Foley was protected by the Republican Gay mafia in the House, because he was “gay”. And any Straight Republicans who knew about him, protected him because he was “gay” also, so they wouldn’t be accused of being not-PC and “homophobic”.

    And Foley was “outted” now, because it suits the radical, activist, Gay Democratic Agenda, pure and simple!

    IF Foley was preying on kids, then a POX on him, and I”m glad he’s gone, regardless.

    But the Democrats who outted him for partisan political purposes, and the Republicans, regardless of sexual orientation, who protected and covered for him, ALL need to pay a price!

    However, contrast this all, with the honorifics accorded to Gerry Stubbs in the press yesterday, after he passed away!

    NOT one mention that he was a sexual predator, having sex with teenagers not of legal age!

    No, he’s a CHAMPION of “gay rights”!

    The damn Democrat and MSM hypocrasy makes me sick to my stomach..

  2. Snapple says:

    AJ–

    Can you add links for the story by Frank Davies at the San Jose Mercury News?

  3. AJStrata says:

    Snapple,

    Thanks for the heads up! Thought I had the link in there.

    AJStrata

  4. MerlinOS2 says:

    The most obvious point in front of everyone’s eyes as to Foley being a dirty trick use of a bad situation is the fact that Rogers had the emails months before and the guy who outed foley before and had plenty of his and other gay oriented publications who would have willing fanned the flames.

    I assure you if someone had not convinced Ross to run with the story, this was going to be implemented as plan B.

    Even if they had to organize a gay march on Washington to get the MSM’s attention.

  5. MerlinOS2 says:

    Another thing, Foley has not been shown to have sexually strong behavior with minors, only some grooming low level work.

    His work toward multiple pieces of legislation making illegal the very things he is being accussed of is a red herring.

    From all I have read, Foley may have like young males who were gay but I believe he truely was just as upset as we are about NAMBLA.

  6. Limerick says:

    Sen. Kerry on the death of Gerry Studds;
    “Gerry was a stalwart champion of New England’s fishing families as well as a committed environmentalist who worked hard to demonstrate that the cause of working people and the cause of the environment go hand in hand with the right leadership. When he retired from Congress, he did not retire from the cause, continuing to fight for the fishing industry and New England’s environmental causes.

    - U.S. Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass.
    (hmmmmmmmm….I wonder why Sen. Kerry didn’t mention Gerry Studds junket to Spain with his 17 year old congressional page for a little er…..well you know?)Cound it be that Studds was a democrat and the trip was only his exploration of diversity?Naw. Kerry wouldn’t do that.

  7. Barbara says:

    The hypocrisy of the dems if without limits, but the MSN wow. These win at any costs people have no shame. This man did more as a sexual predator then Foley ever thought of doing and the MSN and dems eulogize him.

  8. Carol_Herman says:

    This election, I guess, tests the age-old theory of “THE POLITICS OF PERSONAL DESTRUCTION.”

    All that separates the GOP from the donks, is six seats in the senate. And, 15 in the HOUSE. Which are up for grabs. (Even though HALF THE HOUSE RUNS! Given that every two years we get HALF THE HOUSE TO RUN, for the two-year winner’s cycle) … what we are probably seeing is the fact that nothing much is affecting America’s imagination. The war in Iraq doesn’t hold bonus points, one way or the other.

    So the donks trotted out “PERSONAL WARFARE,” even willing to sacrifice their own perverts (oops, I meant the Lesbo and Gay lobby). Where the redicule is supposed to fall on the GOP.

    It seems most unlikely that this has an ability to change the dynamics; but then all that separates the donks, now, from what had been their turf; their majority chairs. Is six seats in the senate. And, 15 in the HOUSE.

    While the donks tossed Lieberman to the wolves. Well? He’s Jewish. Maybe, they thought it wouldn’t matter? Lieberman wins, anyway. And, wants his seniority back. Coming in as an independent, risks this. (But not his PENSION! I’m sure his pension is not at risk!)

    Bargaining chips, ahead?

    It’s an odd election, because the cycle, itself, doesn’t attract voters. Only the “big one” every four years, gets enough people motivated to vote. And, then? I’d bet peacetime records lower voter turnout, over all, than at other times.

    The “POLITICS OF PERSONAL DESTRUCTION” may be in play because people aren’t interested enough in voting? Trying to bring the totals down, brings the donks closer to their usual methods of theft.

    For sure, the GOP will not reach 60 seats in the senate! They just can’t seem to grow the tent large, enough. And, we are “a two-party system.” Worse extortion comes to play in parliamentary systems; where someone holding a crucial 2% can get a lot in return.

    I guess on November 8th we will learn if “tabloid” politics works? Or more than likely, doesn’t. (That’s why Drudge runs the headline that both the President and Karl Rove are happy guys.)

    If this were the stock market, you’d know that sometimes a very good stock gets depressed. And, offers real buying opportunities. Given that the stakes go higher in 2008, I do wonder whose stock, ahead, could advance, while other politicians falter?

    Would things have been different if Rudy Guiliani had put himself on New York’s ticket? YES! And, he could have chosen to run for Governor. Even, if, for some reason no one thought it was necessary to run against Hillary.

    But then in the planning of things this is what the GOP insiders chose to do. While the donks decided queers really are perverts. And, the GOP tent should accommodate them at all. This is the ticket to success?

    Well, doesn’t hollywood also misjudge the audiences’ tastes? Capable of wasting a lot of money on stuff that doesn’t sell.

    One thing for sure. Vaudeville is DEAD. But there’s no date given for its demise. It just disappeared. I wonder what’s next?