It’s been more than two years since Mark Foley garnered notoriety for sending salacious emails to congressional pages.
The Floridian Congressman has since resigned, come out and been cleared of any illegal wrong-doing, which means it’s a perfect time for right-leaning journalist James Kirchick to come out and blast the left for addressing Foley’s misdeeds in the first place.
Though he describes Foley’s online activities as “reprehensible,” Kirchick wags a righteous finger at “democratic operatives” and other liberal activists who, he says, simply used Foley as a political pawn.
The Congressman didn’t deserve such malicious attention – rather, he needs our sympathy and understanding. Or something.
From The Advocate:
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
My initial reaction to hearing about Foley was one not only of disgust but pity. While there’s no question that Foley behaved inappropriately, he never hurt anyone (indeed, in several of the IM conversations, it’s clear the 17-year-old “victim” happily egged him on), and he was apparently the victim of childhood trauma. Shouldn’t gay men and lesbians, of all people, have a bit of sympathy for such an individual?
On the contrary, the reactions of liberal gay activists, who took obscene pleasure in seeing one of their brethren dragged through the mud, were at times hard to differentiate from the inquisatorial demands of many conservative commentators simultaneously calling for a purge of the so-called Velvet Mafia from Republican congressional offices. Normally, it’s the GOP that uses gay-baiting to win elections. This time it was Democrats.
Kirchick goes on to say left lavenders are again playing games with people’s private lives, this time with John McCain staffer Mark Buse, who was outed last month.
Not only are such efforts disingenuous, says Kirchick, but end up perpetuating homophobic stereotypes. That’s not the case with Buse, we don’t think, nor do we think the charge can be made in terms of Foley – or other high profile cases, like Larry Craig and Bob Allen.
By claiming the media’s attention on raunchy IMs or bathroom antics somehow contributes to homophobia is a bit short-sighted. It’s because of homophobia that men like Craig and Foley find themselves in such sticky situations. They are affected by it and, sadly, often contribute to it. By blaming the left and the media, Kirchick’s displacing responsibility from society as a whole and, in fact, this nation’s conservative set, who do more to hurt gay people – publicly and privately – than any so-called democratic operative.
ChristopherM
Our “brethren”? Closeted sexual predators who troll for sex with men while voting against our civil rights are not my brethren. He deserved worse than what he got.
blake
Uh, the guy went after kids. He got what he deserved. Why should we feel sorry for this guy? The electronic messages made it clear what he was trying to do.
NG
Never mind the kids part – that’s just caca talk. Many of the “kids” eventually got themselves a hefty pay day from it and secured their futures in the political arena.
Foley The Congressman put a Sword Of Damocles over the entire gay community which to this day is still there. That can’t be forgotten no matter what.
Richard
Foley, like Craig, was never about homophobia or even the closet, it was and remains about hypocrisy.
ajax
“and he was apparently the victim of childhood trauma. Shouldn’t gay men and lesbians, of all people, have a bit of sympathy for such an individual?”
No, goddamit, we shouldn’t. While such childhood trauma might explain Foley’s behavior, it DOES NOT excuse his behavior. To infer that Foley’s behavior should be tolerated by our community is even more reprehensible than Foley’s actual act. Mr. Kerchick, in my view, you have just given us a look under your own skirts and exposed yet another pederast. Get thee to a psychotherapist.
dvlaries
” Brethren ” is the word that got me too. Please, Mr. Kirchick, before our ‘brother’ got found out -while on duty as an elected civil servant- chasing 17-year-old same-sex ass, give me a goddamn example of when he did or said ANYthing to the benefit of his gay ‘family.’
osocubano
Wasn’t the whole idea to “go down”?
Chris
The righteous indignation here would be laughable if it weren’t so dangerous. I mean, c’mon, how many of you have checked out a cute young guy without worrying a whole lot whether he was 18 or not? Or are we now the “protectors of youth”? Give me a break.
When you use the weapons of your enemy (in this case, righteous indignation), you BECOME the enemy.
ajax
Chris, are you for real? There is a difference between “checking out a cute young guy” and goading the cute young guy into sexually provocative behavior.
If I pass by my neighborhood bakery and look at the pretty, cakes does that make me fat or diabetic? Of courese not.
Checking out beauty – in a wholesome or unwholesome sense is human. Using one’s age, rank, or power to sexually manipulate another is sick.
Chris
Ajax, don’t get me wrong, I’m not advocating having sex with underage guys. But I’m seeing something here where it’s OK for us to lust after young guys (or, as you euphemistically put it, “check out their beauty”. Puh-leeeze!), but it’s not OK for Tom Foley to do it. It’s either OK for ALL gay guys to check out young guys, or it’s not OK. Do we now have to pass a political litmus test before we can enjoy our sexuality?
And what about the whole Gerry Studds affair back in the 80’s? That was pretty darn similar to this. The idea that it was OK for Studds because he had a “D” after his name just doesn’t wash for me.
I should emphasize that I’m generally on your side here. I’m just playing devil’s advocate so that we don’t fall into our own trap of hypocrisy. But I think I’m bringing up valid points, and I hope it makes people think about WHY it was wrong for Foley to have done what he did.
As far as your distinguishing between just looking and actually doing something, I agree, there is a real difference.
Brandon
Where was the Repubs sympathy when they spearheaded the take down of Bill Clinton over consensual sex w/ another adult?
This is so stupid, I mean what’s next? All those guys on “To Catch A Predator” who were just talking dirty online and over the phone and never got the chance to fuck the kids deserve our sympathy b/c they may have had trumatic childhoods? BS.
Mr C
Bottom line,
Old goat was in the closet and now he’s been pulled out due to his own indiscrections. Now just be proud and Gay and find a nice Man to settle down with.
But this just in the Man who won his seat is now in big trouble himself over sexual indiscretions
read for yourself: http://harpers.org/archive/2008/10/hbc-90003682
ajax
Chris, I think you need to go back and familiarize yourself with the nature of Foley’s folly. He did far more than check out the pages. Foley was on the (barely) legal side of statutory rape and the (barely) legal side of sexual harassment. I happen to think he didn’t manage the legal boundaries as well as his Congressional cronies apparently do.
I have no problem with you taking on the role of Devil’s Advocate, but, as the DA, you don’t have license to change facts. Foley used his (elected) position to take advantage of young men.