Tuesday, December 05, 2006

The Foley Trail

Don't Ask … Don't E-mail

The half-open closet in which Mark Foley spent his life was a recipe for disaster, say those few who tried to intervene. Investigating Foley's pre-teen seduction by a priest, the "ladies' man" mask he wore in Palm Beach society, and his love-hate relationship with the gay community, the authors uncover the ambition, delusion, and hypocrisy that corroded both the politician and his party.

by Gail Sheehy and Judy Bachrach

House Speaker Dennis Hastert, former representative Mark Foley, President Bush, House majority leader John Boehner, and Representative John Shimkus.

Everyone knew Mark Foley was gay. Everyone. And everyone who had a stake in his success—party, press, parents, staff, supporters, and pages—conspired for their own purposes to keep the closet half closed.

Born at the peak of the baby boom, in 1954, he grew up near Palm Beach, in the scrappy little town of Lake Worth, Florida, which in recent years has become a popular refuge for gay retirees. That subculture most likely did not enter into the consciousness of his parents, Irish Catholics from Massachusetts. "One of the biggest psychological problems for him was he was never able to be who he was with his parents, and they were his No. 1 campaigners," says Eric Johnson, the openly gay chief of staff for Florida congressman Robert Wexler and an old friend of the Foley family's.

In the early 70s, Foley developed the veneer of a charming, heterosexual party boy, and a high-school yearbook caption depicted him as "noted for—being a ladies man." But the formative experience of his passage through puberty, as the world now knows, was his seduction by an authority figure whose attentions may have been a guilty pleasure. A priest at the Sacred Heart Catholic School took him biking and skinny-dipping and massaged him in the nude, often bringing him to saunas for fondling. Unlike a peer of his who ran away from another priest's overtures, young Foley apparently did not resist. The Reverend Anthony Mercieca, who was 17 years older than Foley, claims they became "attached to each other .… almost like brothers." Foley's mother welcomed the priest into their home for Christmas dinners and his parents allowed him to take their adolescent son to the beach and on sleepover trips to New York and Washington.

The priest rejects Foley's latter-day charge of abuse and defends their relationship as one of "naturalness.… For some people, it's molestation. Maybe for other kids, it's fun, you know?" This arrested sexual development, with its titillating mix of secrecy and shame, Foley would reproduce in his adult years. And just as his parents had been totally unaware of the sexual advances to which their son was surrendering, right under their noses, so, years later, were Foley's "girlfriends" and his longtime gay partner unaware of his adult addiction to fraternizing with and fantasizing about sex with teenage boys. Foley was able to juggle a triple life—as a political chameleon, a semi-closeted gay power broker, and a secret sexual predator.

Trapped in the Closet

Mark Foley's ambition to be a politician became the family dream. He was always in a hurry. His doting parents had no problem with his dropping out of Palm Beach Junior College at age 20; they helped him open a diner in downtown Lake Worth and turn it into the platform for his grandiose goals. "Mark never actually did any work at the Lettuce Patch, no cooking or busing. He was the face, while Mom worked like a slave in the sweaty kitchen, making pies; Eddie, his older brother, worked the cash register; and his dad managed the business," according to Rodney Romano, who twice presided over Lake Worth as mayor and knows the Foley family well. In his early 20s, even before he won his first local election, Foley was telling people he planned to be a U.S. senator by age 50. He joined a circle of idealistic progressive Democrats, all under 30, who became known as the Kiddie Car Gang. "I also see myself married with a family," Foley proclaimed publicly back then, in 1976. But his personal life took a very different course.

Mary McCarty, a Palm Beach County commissioner, remembers first hearing about Foley's sexuality back in the 80s, when "the rumor mill already had it that he was gay." At the time Foley was close to a very well-known man, Roy Talmo, the chairman of First American Bank and Trust in Lake Worth. Talmo, like Father Mercieca, was a powerful man, more than 20 years older, who lavished attention on Foley. "Mark was known as one of 'Roy's boys' in his 20s," says a friend of Talmo's. "Roy was the go-to guy in this county for whatever you needed, either financial or political," says André Fladell, a well-connected chiropractor in Delray Beach. Talmo put young Foley on the board of his bank, which became the largest stockholder in Cenvill Development Corporation, builder of Century Village, a chain of the biggest retirement communities in southeast Florida. Talmo's bank went under during the savings-and-loan debacle of the late 80s, and Cenvill went bankrupt. But not before Talmo reportedly put Mark in a number of high-stakes real-estate deals and taught him the art of the quick flip. Foley's most spectacular land shuffle was in 1986, when Talmo lent him $2.45 million to buy an abandoned golf course to turn around and sell to the school district for $2.91 million. In a matter of hours, Foley walked away with nearly a half-million dollars.

Before he turned 30, Foley was already driving a Mercedes and offering to be the gofer and fund-raiser for Democrat Dennis Koehler, who was running for Congress. Sean Strub, Koehler's campaign manager, welcomed Foley as a fund-raiser because he had lucrative social connections. "Mark invited me to fancy society parties," Strub recalls. "I'm very much driven by my passion for issues and wanting to change things. Mark had a very different set of values. He wore gold chains and liked to go to parties. He was about his ambition and his Mercedes. It was clear that, more than anything else, Mark wanted to be a player."

According to Strub, Foley volunteered that he was bisexual, but hastened to add he was never going to act on it. "It was apparent that he saw his sexuality as an impediment to his career in the same way he saw being a Democrat at that time as an impediment to his career." (Strub later became an openly H.I.V.-positive congressional candidate and founded Poz magazine, for people with H.I.V. He recalls that Foley, as a congressman, was one of the few Republican members to support needle exchange to curb the spread of the disease among drug users.) Strub says he once later saw Foley in a Key West gay bar on Duval Street. "That was the Aha! moment," he says.

In 1984, when Foley ran for county commission, despite proclaiming he was a committed Democrat and outspending his primary opponent, the party slapped him down and told him, "It's not your time," according to Rand Hoch, a Democratic Party activist. Months later, Foley switched opportunistically to the Republican Party, accepting the price to his private life. At a gay party in Palm Beach Gardens in the late 80s, Foley recognized Hoch. He crossed the room, according to Hoch, and blurted, "I wish I could be out like you are and [still] involved in politics. But I can't because I'm a Republican." Hoch told him that of course he could come out, but Hoch himself didn't believe it. "Palm Beach is somewhat accepting of alternative lifestyles, but you don't talk about the gay elephant in the room," he says.

Foley collected an A-list of rich Palm Beach supporters, some of them Democrats, who spent lavishly to throw him fund-raising parties. He always wanted to be in the picture. And his picture was seldom missing from "The Shiny Sheet" (as the Palm Beach Daily News calls itself), in which he cozied up to visiting celebrities, from Sly Stallone and Clint Eastwood to the Clintons and President George H. W. Bush. He started quietly dating a wealthy and attractive dermatologist, Dr. Layne Nisenbaum, who owns a popular anti-aging institute in Palm Beach, but he was always careful in the early years to appear at events with beautiful women.

Robin Bernstein, a vivacious socialite, who worked on Foley's fund-raisers in 2000, accompanied him to many political functions. "He was the perfect date—debonair, articulate, and there wasn't a charity he didn't help," she says. Another favorite escort was a gorgeous former Miss Germany, Petra Levin. "Mark thought it was useful to take me out as 'a mask,' but he didn't make me feel like that," says Levin, a nearly six-foot slender blonde, in her mid-40s, who dresses like a model and drives a sapphire-blue Aston Martin convertible. "The moment I met Mark, there was an instant chemistry," she says emphatically. They were introduced by Dr. Nisenbaum, who was her new neighbor. Immediately she and Foley were talking and laughing, and he began calling to ask if she would like to "go along" to some of his political events. "I'd say, 'Is it one of the boring ones?' He'd say, 'No, this one might be exciting.'" She had zero interest in politics, but as a divorced mother new to town, she welcomed invitations to the Red Cross Ball and glamorous events at Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago. Once Foley was elected to Congress, she would stay over at his Washington town house when he wanted to be seen with her at fashionable restaurants or at parties with celebrities. "He talked from the beginning about wanting to be a senator," says Levin. "He was really politically ambitious."

Petra Levin, like many others who spoke for this article, says she never raised the issue with Foley of whether he was gay, "but I knew it right away. He was very flirtatious. If people watched me with Mark—we'd hug each other, he'd give me a kiss and hold me—they'd never think he was gay."

"See, that's what puzzles me about this whole thing," says Hoch, who founded the Palm Beach County Human Rights Council, a gay-rights organization, and seems comfortable in his own skin. "I never regarded Mark really as being in the closet. Whenever I bumped into him, whether it was at a gay event or just at City Place, our outdoor mall in West Palm, he was pretty aggressive about going for whatever he wanted It's not like the party structure here didn't know [he was gay], but they didn't care because he got them access and social connections. He was excellent at networking."

On the rare occasions when Foley took Nisenbaum to a dinner event, they sat discreetly at separate tables. Appearing as handsome single men, they were always welcome additions. When they were photographed, there was usually a buxom babe between them. This fiction was duly noted and appreciated by local Republican Pooh-Bahs, including the current chairman of the Palm Beach County Republican Party, Sid Dinerstein, who says, "If Mark Foley had his boyfriend and lived a committed monogamous life, he could have been elected until he couldn't walk anymore."

The Secret Lives of Congressmen

In 1994, Foley was swept into Congress with Newt Gingrich's right-wing revolution, and he worked hard at making a mentor of Gingrich. It would be 10 years before Florida senator Bob Graham's seat would open up, but Foley hired a chief of staff to help him begin long-range planning for ascension to that higher body. Kirk Fordham, who was openly gay, found his new boss to be "notoriously friendly all across Capitol Hill. I was always conscious of the fact because he was gay; if he struck up a conversation with a younger staffer or intern or an assistant in Congressman DeLay's office and lingered too long, I would nudge him."

"I did see him with younger men, riding bikes or at the gym," realizes Petra Levin in hindsight. "It angered him that his lives had to be so separate."

The earliest complaint by a page was in either 2000 or 2001, when a young man went to Arizona Republican congressman Jim Kolbe's office to describe an e-mail from Foley that had made him uncomfortable, and asked that something be done. Kolbe has said he recalls notifying both Foley's staff and the page clerk's office, but saw no evidence of any follow-up. Fordham recalls that "Foley never, ever went to gay bars in Washington. He had a limited number of gay friends in D.C. My suspicion is that part of the reason he engaged in some of the late-night instant-messaging is because he could never have a healthy, out gay social life."

A very different picture is suggested by Eric Johnson, who says, "Kirk was a not-want-to-know-about-it conservative. It was common knowledge Mark was very flirty and promiscuous in Washington; it was only gossip fodder because everybody knew he had a partner in Florida. But I didn't know his interest went to 16-year-olds."

In a later interview, Fordham expressed his own frustration: "Mark is a caring, compassionate, real guy, but there was also a dark underside that he never let anyone see."

Foley often held fund-raisers at his Washington town house. Once, when Fordham showed up early to check on the caterer, he found Foley hanging out in the kitchen with two good-looking young guys. One of them, Fordham says, was the head of the College Republicans at his school and clearly gay. "I gave the congressman that You-oughta-know-better kind of look. Lobbyists were already arriving. He gave me that sheepish grin—half See-what-I-found and half I-shouldn't-be-doing-this. Stuff like that was stupid, reckless, and unnecessary." Fordham says he was aware that Foley continued to be friendly with the student, "but I have no idea if there was any physical contact."

Foley also resisted repeated exhortations from his gay political friends to declare himself honestly. Fordham explains, "He was always concerned about being referred to as 'Mark Foley, comma, openly gay Republican congressman,' much like he perceived [Massachusetts congressman] Barney Frank and Jim Kolbe as being identified first as being gay rather than by what issues they were advancing." Voters and colleagues have long since seen beyond Frank's sexual orientation, but Foley's folly was to hide his sympathies by voting for the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. Perhaps cowed by threats from some in the gay community to expose his hypocrisy, Foley went on to support various pro-gay measures, voting to expand health benefits for homosexual couples and include gays in federal hate-crime legislation, among others. "It became a love-hate relationship between Mark and the local [Palm Beach] gay community," says Hoch.

Romano, the former Lake Worth mayor, who is revolted by the dishonor Foley has brought to his town, acknowledges, "He didn't stand for anything—he toed the party line—but you couldn't beat him as a politician. Plus he had a built-in campaign team in his family. His parents never missed a local event." Foley's married sister, Donna Winterson, 60, spent every weekend during campaign seasons traveling around the state with him, employed as his paid political director after years of working for him on a volunteer basis. "She liked seeing him successful," says Levin. "That was her success."

While Foley was still deliberating whether to run for the Senate, Fordham says he wrote him a long memo warning him to expect people going through his garbage, and private investigators hired to follow him home and hunt for men he may have had encounters with. "He came back to me saying, 'Do you really think they would do all that?' I think part of him was still in denial that they would really go to those lengths."

The Kids Aren't All Right

In 2002, Congressman Foley was re-elected with an astounding 79 percent of the vote and appeared to be on top of the world, which he traveled both freely and for free. As a member of the House Ways and Means Committee and a popular speaker, he was royally entertained by private organizations and interest groups that paid for his travel to destinations such as Scotland and Pebble Beach, California. "I don't feel any embarrassment about doing the trips," he has said. Since he never took Nisenbaum, he would take his parents. He was especially proud of bringing them to see the Vatican.

With a wealthy boyfriend and without the burden of the bills of a family man, Foley enjoyed two houses of his own—a prized historic town house a short walk from his Washington office, and a condominium near West Palm Beach, which was perhaps for appearances only, since most weekends he stayed over in Nisenbaum's luxurious Palm Beach home. Sources say the couple was recently considering buying a summer home in the gay-friendly resort of Ogunquit, Maine.

By now, apparently believing he was totally protected by his institution—like the depraved priests protected so long by the Catholic Church—he was using his position to repeat with congressional pages the priest-pupil dynamic of power and control. Around 2003, Fordham recalls, he took a call from Jeff Trandahl, then clerk of the House: "We have a problem The congressman showed up at the page dorm last night. He appeared to have been drinking, and he was turned away at the door." Fordham remembers agonizing with Trandahl over what to do about this overt display of uncontrolled behavior. Obviously his mild warnings to Foley were not having an impact. Fordham asked for a private meeting with Scott Palmer, chief of staff to Speaker Dennis Hastert. According to Fordham, Palmer said it didn't bother the party that Mark was gay: "We think he's a rising star here, he's got so much potential, and he's great on television." Fordham says of the meeting, "We sat facing each other. It was pretty uncomfortable. I'm going behind my boss's back. I knew that Scott knew that I was gay. I told him I was concerned that Foley seemed to be too chummy with pages, interns, and young male staffers I asked Scott if he wouldn't mind either speaking with the congressman himself or having Speaker Hastert have a chat with him. That might alarm him enough to realize other people were watching, and not just his staff." A couple of days later, Fordham says, he checked back with Palmer to see if he had met with Foley: "He said he had taken care of it, and he had brought the Speaker in the loop. I believe it happened, but apparently it didn't have any effect." (Trandahl and Palmer did not respond to requests for comment.)

Matthew Loraditch, now a senior at Towson University, in Maryland, who worked as a page from 2001 to 2002, has said that a supervisor told him Foley was "a little odd" but never warned him to stay away from the congressman. He claims he later saw sexually explicit messages that Foley had sent to former pages after they left the program. Perhaps on some deep, subconscious level Foley understood that his compulsions were leading him toward certain self-destruction.

Most perversely, Foley took up the cause of protecting youngsters from predators, becoming a particularly vocal and punitive member of the Congressional Missing and Exploited Children's Caucus, which he co-founded in 1997. He referred to pedophiles as "America's most depraved." Psychologists see reactions like Foley's as classic—publicly criticizing the selfsame unacceptable behavior he was committing, which he could not personally control. More recently, he helped to write the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, which President Bush has said would "make the Internet safer for our sons and daughters." It became law two months before Foley's downfall.

By the time, in 2003, Foley began full-time campaigning to unseat Senator Bob Graham, the periodic threats from his opponents to out him reached a peak. After a Florida alternative newsweekly reported he was gay, he called an unusual press conference in May of that year specifically to address the issue, but refused to reveal his sexual orientation. He suggested that Democratic activists were behind the mounting rumors. The Palm Beach Post chose not to make mention of the press conference, later writing that their policy was to report on a politician's sexual orientation only when it was "relevant to a news story." Eric Johnson was astonished. "I thought the media made a real mistake in keeping Mark's secrets for him. They played into his sense of invulnerability."

That summer, Foley's Senate primary campaign looked like a sure winner. A statewide swing with his sister in August brought even some conservative Republican state officials on board. Then, it seems, national G.O.P. officials got wind of Graham's intention to retire, so the seat was more seriously in play. Out of the blue, at summer's end, Foley stunned just about everyone by withdrawing from the race. He called political editor Brian Crowley at The Palm Beach Post and gave as his reason the health of his father, who was in the hospital with prostate cancer. (Edward Foley died in November.)

"For the real political types, it just didn't ring true," says Sid Dinerstein, the chairman of the Republican Party in Palm Beach County. "The reason he wound up with a couple of million dollars in campaign money was because we [the state party] were funding his Senate bid. He barely had opponents." Even this passionate party man is among many who speculate that the White House shut down Foley's campaign. "Maybe there's a belief by the powers that be, which is code for Karl Rove, that a gay couldn't win a Senate seat in Florida," says Dinerstein. (A spokesperson for Karl Rove says, "Not only did Karl never say that, he doesn't believe that to be true, either.") "One could argue it's untrue, since there's plenty of rumors about Charlie Crist. [Crist, Florida's governor-elect, has publicly denied he is gay.] But there were enough whispers that the Foley campaign could have produced embarrassments—and maybe the same embarrassments that we just saw, maybe exactly the same." Commissioner McCarty goes even further: "I believe somebody took him into a room and showed him a videotape or something pretty definitive, because without a smoking gun, he would have denied it." Eric Johnson believes the White House possibly knew something about the messages to pages and cut a deal with Foley and Fordham. "Then Foley could stay in the House, Martinez would run in his place [Mel Martinez, who later won the Senate seat], and Kirk could move into a Senate race [by becoming Martinez's finance director]." Fordham, however, says, "No one ever called—the president, or Karl Rove, or the head of the Republican Party—to discourage him in any way from running."

After 25 years in public life, Foley had hit the glass ceiling, and he still couldn't be himself. Within a week, back in his office on the Hill, after the summer recess, he began brooding on the scuttlebutt that he had dropped out because he couldn't deal with the gay rumors. In front of his sister and Fordham, he broke down. He sobbed out the story of "repeated abuse that he had received from the priest at his church"—not in anger, according to Fordham, but in shame. One thinks of the priest's version: For some people, it's molestation. Maybe for other kids, it's fun, you know? That conflict is precisely what breeds the toxicity of shame, and shame is what spilled out 35 years after Foley's first gay encounter, when the psychological barriers between his public self and his shadow self began to dissolve. He reportedly tried to tell the story to his parents. His mother could not believe such a thing of a Roman Catholic priest. His father refused to acknowledge the conversation. "[Foley] went into a funk," says Fordham. "He was disengaged from his job. He had in some ways lost his purpose for serving"—his purpose having been to get to the top of the power structure.

Foley was struggling. Fordham, his chief of staff and confidant, had deserted him. Some in his party were shunning him. "I think it started unraveling for Mark when the White House didn't support him in running for senator," says Robin Bernstein. Petra Levin, now remarried, says she noticed that Foley was drinking a lot around this time, privately, when he would be at her house playing cards with Nisenbaum. "I don't know if the drinking stopped when he went home," she says. Foley had always liked a glass or two of red wine, says Fordham, and kept a wine-storage cooler in his kitchen. But Levin, who is on the board of the Renaissance Institute, an addiction-treatment center in Palm Beach, was keenly aware of alcoholic patterns and at this point she thought of suggesting to her friend that he needed help.

The E-mail Trail

At the end of August 2005, a 16-year-old page forwarded e-mails Foley had sent him to Danielle Savoy, a 29-year-old scheduler for Louisiana representative Rodney Alexander. As the page had worked with her in Alexander's office, the two were friendly, Savoy says. The e-mails' style was not really lurid, but alarming enough that the page called them "sick": "Send me an email pic of you as well," suggested the 52-year-old congressman. "What do you want for your birthday coming up ? what stuff do you like to do." There was talk of Foley's intended visit to the gym, as well as of the excellent physique of another teenager. Savoy says simply that Foley's language made her "curious." She forwarded the e-mails to another friend, with the note, "Hey, what do you think about this?"

In early November, the St. Petersburg Times, of Florida, received Savoy's e-mail. "From that day to this I have no idea how the media got to see it," says Savoy. "Who knows?" Adam C. Smith, a St. Petersburg Times reporter who was working on the story with Bill Adair, phoned the office of Representative Alexander, but, as executive editor Neil Brown would later point out in an oblique letter to readers, "We were unsuccessful in getting members of Congress who were involved in the matter ? to acknowledge any problem with Foley's ambiguous e-mail." The Miami Herald, which also received the e-mails, barely touched the story. "We didn't go as far as attempting to reach out to other pages," its executive editor, Tom Fiedler, later admitted, because the e-mails were "too ambiguous to lead to a news story." (Fox News also got the e-mails, but chose not to share them with its viewers.) Nonetheless, the newspaper's calls to congressmen had their effect.

After Representative Alexander was contacted by the St. Petersburg Times, he demanded to see exactly what his former page had sent Savoy—and he wanted it very quickly, judging by his staff's next actions. Savoy, who was home ill, was phoned by Alexander's press secretary, Adam Terry, who roused her from her sickbed so she could come to the office at once. Instead, she gave him her password, and the Foley e-mails were promptly ripped from her computer. (Savoy is quick to acknowledge that she is a registered Republican—contradicting Hastert's early response when the scandal erupted this past September, blaming "a lot of Democratic operatives" for the leak.)

A wave of panic swept through Congress as Republican leaders and staffers suddenly realized that Foley's predatory activities were attracting attention. As one deeply knowledgeable source tells V.F., "In November [2005], why did the whole issue of Foley come up at all? Was it self-enforcement on the part of Congress? No! The St. Petersburg Times was calling around, asking tough questions! It created the spark. Even though they didn't publish [the story], the act of reporting was the only oversight there." Within days of the calls from reporters, everyone went into action. Royal Alexander, chief of staff (but no relation) to the Louisiana congressman, swiftly informed a lower-level Hastert aide about the e-mails, although, citing the concerns of the boy's family, he did not reveal their exact contents. The Hastert aide, in turn, quickly talked to Mike Stokke, the Speaker's deputy chief of staff, as well as to his chief counsel, Ted Van Der Meid.

Foley's new chief of staff, Liz Nicolson, asked her boss for the e-mails, but she was out of luck, too. "I delete all my e-mails," he told her. So Nicolson called Representative Alexander's office for a copy of her own boss's e-mails. The response she got, according to one knowledgeable source, was "very odd." First Alexander replied, "Sure. Send someone over right away, and we'll give you a copy of the e-mail," according to the source. "Then they said, 'No, we're not going to give you the e-mail.'"

"Why not?" asked Nicolson.

"The congressman doesn't want to get involved," Nicolson was told. ("Apparently Representative Alexander's office had been advised by an attorney not to show the contents," Fordham says. Royal Alexander declined to comment.)

Jeff Trandahl, the House clerk and Capitol official who was most concerned about the pages, and Representative John Shimkus, a tall West Point graduate and Illinois Republican who heads the five-member House Page Board, confronted Foley in his Cannon House Office Building office, and the tenor of their dispute was swiftly communicated to various staffers, one of whom reveals what was said. "Why are you e-mailing kids? Stay away from the kid and stay away from the pages," warned Shimkus.

"It's important to me to mentor kids. These are kids who care about our government," Foley protested. "I was just being friendly, that's all."

Shimkus never told the other members of the page board about Foley's e-mails.

In the spring of 2006, Representative Alexander discussed the Foley e-mails with Majority Leader John Boehner and New York representative Thomas Reynolds, the quick-tempered head of the National Republican Congressional Committee. Reynolds says he, in turn, went to Hastert. Boehner claims he also informed Hastert around the same time. But after the Foley affair exploded in the media, in September 2006, Hastert said he had no recollection of any of this. Not of Boehner's conversation with him, nor of Reynolds's. "If Reynolds told me, it was in a line of things, and we were in another crisis this spring," said the Speaker. "So I just don't remember that."

On July 21, 2006, Melanie Sloan, a slender, dark-haired former prosecutor who heads the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a nonpartisan government-reform organization, received copies of the same e-mails. Unlike the two Florida newspaper editors, Sloan, who had spent four years as an assistant U.S. attorney specializing in sex crimes, didn't find the contents ambiguous. On receipt of the e-mails, she focused on the Foley query "What do you want for your birthday coming up?"

"Grown men don't send e-mails to young men they hardly know asking for a 'pic' or what they want for birthdays," she says. "Those e-mails had PREDATOR stamped all over them. Obviously."

That July afternoon, Sloan says, she contacted Leanna Saler, of the F.B.I.'s Washington, D.C., public-corruption office ("because she had once been in touch with me and said if I learned of things that might interest her I should let her know"), then forwarded Saler the eight pages of e-mails. Saler called back that afternoon simply to inquire if Foley had written those e-mails. That was the last Sloan says she heard from the F.B.I. Then, on September 28, ABC's chief investigative correspondent, Brian Ross, posted excerpts from the same e-mails on the network's Web site.

A few days after the ABC scoop, an F.B.I. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told The Washington Post that the F.B.I. had not opened an investigation into Foley all summer long because the e-mails "did not rise to the level of criminal activity."

"And that's true—it didn't rise to that level!" Sloan concedes. "But that's why you open an investigation. To see if there's anything else to find."

Next, F.B.I. and Justice Department officials, again speaking on condition of anonymity, informed The Washington Post that another reason the bureau couldn't investigate Foley was that Sloan had heavily redacted the e-mails and may have sat on the document for months before sending it their way. "They are lying," Sloan says flatly. "And I think the reason they're lying is because the F.B.I. is a cover-your-ass agency, and they don't want to be responsible if, in the intervening months, some kid got hurt while they did nothing."

V.F. received a copy of the e-mails Sloan sent to the F.B.I., but from a different source. On it are all the names, unedited: Danielle Savoy, the distressed boy whom Foley was wooing, and the page with the excellent physique. "This is an issue that's being investigated, and it's not going to be debated in the press," says F.B.I. spokesman Richard Kolko.

Getting to the Bottom

Toward the end of September 2006, Foley's staff heard that ABC was investigating the e-mails received by the Louisiana page. (Stopsexpredators.blogspot.com was actually posting them, but at least this outlet attracted a more contained, less influential audience.) ABC's Ross was appealed to on various levels not to go with the story, the investigative journalist recalls. One Foley staffer, he says, informed him, "This is bad judgment on your part. Other media outlets have those same e-mails and no one's using it." In addition, Ross was told, "Foley was just being friendly. He liked kids. Brian should meet Mark. They'd like each other and then he'd understand."

At this recollection, Ross laughs. "Yeah, I'd understand all right."

Foley's staff began organizing consulting sessions with Foley pollster Dave Sackett and media adviser Sam Dawson. Even Fordham, who had quit more than two years earlier and was by then chief of staff for Reynolds, was pressed into service. After all, in two days Foley was due to fly back to his home district to start campaigning. "We decided Mark should mainly speak to local TV stations in Florida to discuss the e-mails," says one of those present at the sessions.

On September 28, as the ABC News Web site posted its first e-mail story, Liz Nicolson sat talking to Foley about what else the media might discover. Walking into the office, Fordham observed how uncomfortable his former boss was with this line of questioning. He says he pulled Foley aside and pushed him hard. "Mark, we need to know," he began, "was there ever any other instance of inappropriate behavior toward any other page? A dinner? Inviting someone to your house? Offering to buy them drinks? Any sexual activity with pages? We need to address the specifics, because it will probably all come out."

"No, no inappropriate behavior like that," said Foley. But he looked terrified, Fordham thought.

That night there was voting in the House, and Representative Ginny Brown-Waite, another Florida Republican and a good friend of Foley's, agreed to cheer him up, walking him to the floor of the House. After the vote, Fordham recalls, she came back, looking stern. She had just spoken to Peggy Sampson, who supervises the Republican page program, and received an earful about Foley, which she imparted, unvarnished and cold, to her friend.

"Mark, there was an occasion when you showed up in front of the page dorm, late at night," the congresswoman said evenly.

"Oh, you know—I guess all kinds of stories are going to come out now," Foley replied. "You just never know what people are going to say."

At noon the next day, Nicolson, Fordham, and another aide met with Foley at his D Street house to discuss campaign strategy. The house is small and compact, bordered by a pretty garden and a wrought-iron gate, its walls covered with paintings by Foley's mother. A lunch of portobello sandwiches was interrupted by ringing cell phones. On the other end of Fordham's was Foley's communications director, Jason Kello, calling from Florida. "Kirk, I just got off the phone with ABC News, and they have 36 pages of instant messages between Mark and former pages. They're sexually explicit" is how Fordham recalls the communications director's opening remarks.

"What do you mean 'sexually explicit'?" asked Fordham.

Kello glanced at his notes and began reading passages that dealt with hand jobs and lotion. But there was more.

Messages, in which Foley used the screen name Maf54, were posted on the ABC Web site. In one, he presses for details about the boy's genitalia and his sexual habits:

Maf54 (7:46:33 PM): did any girl give you a haand job this weekend
[Teenager] (7:46:38 PM): lol no
[Teenager] (7:46:40 PM): im single right now
[Teenager] (7:46:57 PM): my last gf and i broke up a few weeks agi ?
Maf54 (7:47:11 PM): good so your getting horny
[Teenager] (7:47:29 PM): lol ? a bit
Maf54 (7:48:00 PM): did you spank it this weekend yourself
[Teenager] (7:48:04 PM): no
[Teenager] (7:48:16 PM): been too tired and too busy
Maf54 (7:48:33 PM): wow ?
Maf54 (7:48:34 PM): i am never to busy haha ?
Maf54 (7:58:59 PM): but it must feel great spirting on the towel
[Teenager] (7:59:06 PM): ya
Maf54 (7:59:29 PM): wow
Maf54 (7:59:48 PM): is your little guy limp ? or growing
[Teenager] (7:59:54 PM): eh growing
Maf54 (8:00:00 PM): hmm
Maf54 (8:00:12 PM): so you got a stiff one now ?
Maf54 (8:01:21 PM): i am hard as a rock ? so tell me when your reaches rock ?
Maf54 (8:03:47 PM): what you wearing
[Teenager] (8:04:04 PM): normal clothes
[Teenager] (8:04:09 PM): tshirt and shorts
Maf54 (8:04:17 PM): um so a big buldge
[Teenager] (8:04:35 PM): ya
Maf54 (8:04:45 PM): um
Maf54 (8:04:58 PM): love to slip them off of you
[Teenager] (8:05:08 PM): haha
Maf54 (8:05:53 PM): and gram the one eyed snake
Maf54 (8:06:13 PM): grab
[Teenager] (8:06:53 PM): not tonight ? dont get to excited
Maf54 (8:07:12 PM): well your hard
[Teenager] (8:07:45 PM): that is true
Maf54 (8:08:03 PM): and a little horny
[Teenager] (8:08:11 PM): and also tru
Maf54 (8:08:31 PM): get a ruler and measure it for me
[Teenager] (8:08:38 PM): ive already told you that
Maf54 (8:08:47 PM): tell me again
[Teenager] (8:08:49 PM): 7 and 1/2
Maf54 (8:09:04 PM): ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Maf54 (8:09:08 PM): beautiful
[Teenager] (8:09:38 PM): lol
Maf54 (8:09:44 PM): thats a great size

Another conversation, with an 18-year-old former page, took place as Foley was waiting to vote on appropriations for the Iraq war.

Maf54: I miss you
[Teenager]: ya me too
Maf54: we are still voting
Maf54: you miss me too

After apparently engaging in cybersex with the boy, Foley concludes:

Maf54: ok ? i better go vote ? did you know you would have this effect on me
[Teenager]: lol I guessed
[Teenager]: ya go vote ? I don't want to keep you from doing our job
Maf54: can I have a good kiss goodnight
[Teenager]: :-*
[Teenager]:

After Kello had read Fordham only a few lines, Fordham cried, "Stop! That's all I need to know!" He heard female campaign workers weeping on the other end of the phone. When he hung up, he says he saw Foley, who was joining him on the patio, looking scared. Fordham told him the news.

"Are those instant messages authentic?" he asked Foley, who turned away, mortified.

When Foley looked back, he said, "Probably."

"Probably?"

"Yeah, I'm sure they're real," said Foley.

Nicolson joined them. "Liz, I've been stupid," said the congressman.

"Mark, I don't know how you can go on in this race," said Fordham. "Do you really want to spend the next 40 days of the campaign running around your district explaining sexually explicit e-mails to pages to your constituents?"

Fordham thought he made it clear that his old boss needed to quit, but Foley couldn't bring himself to do that. The N.R.C.C. headquarters was around the corner, and Fordham made it his next stop. There he found Representative Reynolds and Speaker Hastert. But before he could finish relaying the awful news, Reynolds's face got purple and he began to shout, "He needs to resign, and he needs to do it right now!" The Speaker just sat there, silent, according to Fordham: "He didn't react at all. This was weeks before the election, and they're thinking how this is going to impact us."

Everyone agreed that Foley needed to resign. They weren't sure how. A lawyer was called in and advised that Foley sign a letter to be delivered to Speaker Hastert on the floor of the House. Just then, Fordham was alerted that Foley's sister Donna Winterson had arrived at the congressman's office, totally unaware of the meltdown. He ran over and found Winterson sitting on the sofa, "looking like she was in a coma." Her life, having been devoted to her brother's campaigns, would be crushed, too. It took Fordham five minutes to get her composed enough to walk back to the house, where they would finally have to swallow the bitter pill.

"You have to get out," Fordham told Foley.

"You mean I have to drop out of the re-election race?

"No, you need to resign your seat in the House. Today. Now."

Fordham says that Foley dissolved into hysterics. His sister wrapped her arms around him, and they rocked together, in tears. Foley wailed to his sister, "I'm so sorry I've done this to you." Fordham says, "He thought he'd ruined everyone's life." Eventually, Foley asked what he needed to do next. "You need to sign this letter and then you both need to get out of here and go to a safe place," Fordham warned them. "Reporters are going to be staking you out." Foley and his sister took five minutes to pack and headed south toward Florida in his BMW. Fordham reached them on his cell phone. "Neither of you is in any state to be driving to Florida. You shouldn't even be behind the wheel!" he said. "Just go to a hotel somewhere in Virginia. Don't turn on the TV. Call your friends."

Damage Control

'You have to be curious—you have to ask all the questions you can think of," Republican whip Roy Blunt, of Missouri, said in early October. He was furious, because, he insisted, like a number of his senior colleagues, he had not been informed of Foley's misdeeds until the day before his resignation.

Hastert, believing the leadership needed to present a united front, as one by one his colleagues were repudiating his foggy recollections, called a Republican-leadership meeting. That same day, an ethics-committee investigation was pressed for by Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi (over the objections of those who wanted an independent counsel), its purpose to discover who knew what when about Foley. Blunt, Boehner, and Reynolds were all summoned "to basically get their stories straight for the press," according to a knowledgeable source, who adds, "That to me is where Hastert attempted a cover-up."

Reynolds balked at having such a meeting. "This is stupid! We can't all go and meet privately and try to get our stories straight, because this matter was just referred to the ethics committee," he told Hastert, according to the same source. "In fact, none of us are supposed to be talking to each other, because we are not supposed to talk to potential witnesses." Worse, added Reynolds, "I can tell you anything we say at this leadership meeting is something we have to share with the ethics committee."

The meeting eventually became a conference call, but without Reynolds's participation. Days later, on October 5, the often moribund ethics committee, a subject of frequent and widespread Hill derision, opened its investigation, without a lot of optimism about what would be accomplished, especially since practically the first utterance from ethics-committee chairman Doc Hastings, a Republican from Washington, was that he thought Hastert "has done an excellent job as Speaker."

President Bush, who called Foley's behavior "disgusting," agreed. "Denny is very credible, as far as I'm concerned. And he's done a fine job as Speaker."

‘My desire, which I don't think will take place," says Florida representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz, an outspoken Democrat, "is that there's an independent investigation so we can make sure this doesn't happen again, so that the callous are held accountable." But there'll be no independence on the Republican side, she feels. "I think they'll try to leave this Foley matter in the ethics committee," the congresswoman adds bitterly. California Democrat Howard Berman, who sits on the ethics committee, is also concerned. Hill sources say that Pelosi had to strong-arm him to join the committee, and it's clear he isn't thrilled to be there. Although there had been early promises the committee would release its findings before the midterm elections, this did not happen. "I said when I took the committee job that if things go back to the way they were, with issues going partisan or stuff being swept under the rug, I would quit," Berman says. "For me, this is a huge test for us."

In mid-October, Fordham says, he learned that the Speaker's office was trying "to throw me under a bus." There were leaks to the press, he says, suggesting that he had tried to block a page-board investigation of Foley. As there never was an investigation to block, he found this accusation unsettling. "I was trying to be the loyal Republican and do this behind closed doors with the F.B.I. and the ethics committee in a way that probably wouldn't have hurt them—until after the election," says Fordham. His shoulders sag. He is very pale, clearly tired—of everything. "It's a pretty significant move for a staffer to go behind his boss's back," he says. "You know, it's not like we had a tip line to the courts, where you can call about congressmen who behave inappropriately to staffers," he says wearily.

After he resigned, Mark Foley was treated for sexual compulsion along with alcoholism at the Sierra Tucson treatment center, in Arizona. A full criminal investigation into his behavior was opened in Florida, where the age of consent is 18. Dennis Hastert, after the Democrats won the House, decided not to run for minority leader. Foley's House seat, despite a valiant defense by Palm Beach Republicans, fell to Democrat Tim Mahoney.

Will the Foley scandal prompt significant reform of the page program that failed to prevent these abuses? "As of this point, there are not any proposed changes for the program," says Salley Collins, a spokesperson for the Committee on House Administration. (The committee oversees the Office of the Clerk, which runs the page program.) "However, there are still multiple ongoing investigations, so I think we're still in a wait-and-see pattern," she adds. "We're always looking to improve the program."

Gail Sheehy and Judy Bachrach are Vanity Fair contributing editors.

Friday, December 01, 2006

World AIDS Day

 On World AIDS Day, Democrats should start to reverse Bush's deadly AIDS policies.
 
 


Bush's Other Losing War: AIDS

 

Doug Ireland

 
 
Doug Ireland, a veteran political journalist, can be reached through his blog, DIRELAND, at http://direland.typepad.com/direland/.
Today is World AIDS Day—and it's sad to have to report that, thanks in part to George W. Bush and the Republicans, we are losing the fight against the pandemic. And it's time for the Democrats to repair some of the damage.
The world has failed miserably to meet the goals for AIDS prevention education set in 2001 by the United Nations General Assembly Special Session on HIV-AIDS. For example, the U.N. said then that, by 2005, 90 percent of young people were supposed to know how to prevent AIDS—yet, today, the latest U.N. figures show that only 20 percent of young women in the world, and only 30 percent of young men, know how to stop the spread of HIV.
That lethal situation is one direct result of Republican legislative earmarks and Bush policy restrictions that are shifting funds away from science-based sex education to "abstinence-only" sex-ed programs. A March 2006 Government Accountability Office report showed that restrictions on AIDS prevention funding in the original legislation for the President's Emergency Plan For AIDS Relief—restrictions imposed by the Republicans at the demand of the anti-condom Christian Right—were undermining AIDS education and prevention.
Take the example of Uganda, where some 32 million quality-approved condoms remain impounded in government warehouses while the U.S. government ramps up financing for abstinence-only approaches to HIV prevention. Religious groups, to whom U.S. AIDS-fighting money has been ladled out as political patronage, are undermining confidence in condoms throughout the country and contributing to misinformation about their effectiveness. The Republican-imposed restrictions on awarding AIDS-fighting dollars are also affecting other countries hard-hit by the AIDS epidemic, such as Nigeria, South Africa and Zambia. The failed fantasy of abstinence-only sex-ed has helped make sub-Saharan Africa—where two-thirds of the world's AIDS cases occur—a killing field.
If the new Democratic majority in Congress has any spine or any compassion, it will begin to roll back these anti-science, religiously-inspired Republican restrictions by passing Democratic Congresswoman Barbara Lee's PATHWAY Act (that stands for Protection Against Transmission of HIV for Women And Youth) when she reintroduces it in January. Lee's bill would strike the PEPFAR earmark requiring that 33 percent of all HIV prevention funding be spent on teaching abstinence-until-marriage as the sole sex education program. And her bill would ensure that all those who are sexually active are taught how to practice safe sex—and that includes using condoms.
Another critical problem: The G8 summit meeting in 2005 set a goal of universal access to treatment for AIDS by 2010. Yet the world is woefully far from achieving that goal—again, thanks to the Bush administration, which, behind closed doors, has been sabotaging the ability of the world's poorest countries to produce or buy cheap, generic AIDS medications.
Here's the background: In November 2001, after a long fight against the monopolization of AIDS-drug production by Big Pharma, officials at a World Trade Organization meeting in Doha, Qatar, agreed that poor countries should have the right to break the multinational drug companies' patent monopoly if they declared a national AIDS emergency. The U.S. was among the 142 countries signing this breakthrough agreement, under which poor countries could make their own AIDS medications cheaply or buy generic versions from a producing country (like India), thus bypassing Big Pharma.
This was a huge victory, won after years of struggle by AIDS and non-governmental public health advocacy organizations around the world. The Doha Declaration began to save thousands of lives, by getting cheap, life-prolonging meds into the hands of HIV-positive people in poorer nations. But the Bush administration has been morbidly blackmailing poor countries into forfeiting their production rights under that Doha treaty if they want so-called "free trade agreements" with the U.S. Either the poor countries refuse to knuckle under and scuttle these bilateral and regional trade deals—worth billions—with Washington, or they accept the deals and raise the price of AIDS medicines beyond the reach of the poor.
This unconscionable blackmail has made many countries, including six in Latin America, cede their rights to break the Big Pharma AIDS drug monopoly.
The Bush administration has been using its big stick to try to impose these pro-Big Pharma free trade agreements on a raft of poor countries hard hit by AIDS, from Thailand to five sub-Saharan African countries, including Botswana and South Africa. Any country that signs on to the Bush administration's arm-breaking trade deals that sabotage the Doha agreement is condemning millions who need the essential AIDS-fighting drugs, but cannot afford them, to death.
Bush and his cronies "began this trade blackmail in 2002, after a group of the largest pharmaceutical companies—headed by Pfizer CEO Hank McKinnell—raised $30 million for the Republicans' congressional campaigns that year," says Jamie Love, director of the Consumer Project on Technology, the international point man in winning the patent-breaking Doha agreement and an unsung hero in the fight for cheap AIDS meds. The effect of these deals, Love says, is to force poor countries into enacting "superpatents" that prolong U.S. drugmakers' monopolies and sharply limit the conditions under which their AIDS patents can be broken.
Though millions of lives are at stake in these sordid and lethal trade deals, so far the Democrats have been silent about them, leaving the Bush administration free to negotiate these murderous agreements at economic gunpoint with little media notice.
If the new Democratic congressional majority wants to show it is really serious about the global AIDS fight, and really wants the U.S. to live up to the goals of universal treatment access Washington agreed to at the G8 summit, it should hold vocal public hearings come January on these odiferous free trade agreements and ban their lethal pro-Big Pharma restrictions. That would allow poor countries to make or buy their own life-extending AIDS drugs and get them into the hands of those who so desperately need them.
If the Democrats make these two things happen, perhaps on World AIDS Day next year we'll have something to celebrate instead of millions more to mourn.
http://www.tompaine.com/print/bushs_other_losing_war_aids.php

A Blue Tsunami 2008 Is Coming For A Forcast:
For News And Commentary:
 
For Florida  News See:
 
Political Talk For And By Political Junkies
Just Rumors The Rumor Mills

Civil War

Civil War and Civil Language: Word Choice and the Newsroom
 
 
What a scholar of journalism, wants us to think.
 


A Blue Tsunami 2008 Is Coming For A Forcast:
For News And Commentary:
 
For Florida  News See:
 
Political Talk For And By Political Junkies
Just Rumors The Rumor Mills

World AIDS Day

 





Now that an estimated 40 million people are living with HIV worldwide, the AIDS epidemic has surpassed even the most dire predictions made by experts when the virus first surfaced 25 years ago.
AIDS has killed more than 25 million people, and the United Nations reports that somebody in the world is newly infected with HIV every 8 seconds. Many other numbers are just as grim as the globe prepares to mark World AIDS Day this Friday, December 1.
Since its inception in 1988, World AIDS Day has strived to raise awareness of the realities of the virus, which is spreading widely through sub-Saharan Africa, Eastern Europe and East Africa at the same time as new drug cocktails have served to push back the disease in the affluent parts of what we used to call the "First World."
How to help?
*Participate in a World AIDS Day event or action this Friday.
* Sign The Pledge The End AIDS Now pledge campaign
*Help save a child's life in an AIDS-affected community by becoming a HopeChild sponsor through WorldVision. (All it takes is one dollar a day.)
*Help build support for the AIDS Cure Act.
*Help support the Global Access Project's call to urge the US government to lead a global health workforce initiative in AIDS ravaged countries.
*Volunteer with the Community HIV/AIDS Mobilization Project (CHAMP), one of the country's most effective grassroots groups working to ensure the development of a broad and effective range of HIV

prevention options in the next decade.

*Download the Free Treatment for All manifesto and add your name to the campaign.
*Show your symbolic support by wearing a red ribbon on World AIDS Day and putting a virtual red ribbon on your site or blog.


Finally, talk to people. Since HIV was first identified a quarter of a century ago, it has been a stigmatized disease, resulting in silence and denial. Talking openly about HIV to your friends, family, colleagues and neighbors is the most powerful way of ending prejudice.

Thursday, November 30, 2006

World AIDS Day

Now that an estimated 40 million people are living with HIV worldwide, the AIDS epidemic has surpassed even the most dire predictions made by experts when the virus first surfaced 25 years ago.
AIDS has killed more than 25 million people, and the United Nations reports that somebody in the world is newly infected with HIV every 8 seconds. Many other numbers are just as grim as the globe prepares to mark World AIDS Day this Friday, December 1.
Since its inception in 1988, World AIDS Day has strived to raise awareness of the realities of the virus, which is spreading widely through sub-Saharan Africa, Eastern Europe and East Africa at the same time as new drug cocktails have served to push back the disease in the affluent parts of what we used to call the "First World."
How to help?
*Participate in a World AIDS Day event or action this Friday.
*Help save a child's life in an AIDS-affected community by becoming a HopeChild sponsor through WorldVision. (All it takes is one dollar a day.)
*Help build support for the AIDS Cure Act.
*Help support the Global Access Project's call to urge the US government to lead a global health workforce initiative in AIDS ravaged countries.
*Volunteer with the Community HIV/AIDS Mobilization Project (CHAMP), one of the country's most effective grassroots groups working to ensure the development of a broad and effective range of HIV prevention options in the next decade.
*Download the Free Treatment for All manifesto and add your name to the campaign.
*Show your symbolic support by wearing a red ribbon on World AIDS Day and putting a virtual red ribbon on your site or blog.
 
 
Finally, talk to people. Since HIV was first identified a quarter of a century ago, it has been a stigmatized disease, resulting in silence and denial. Talking openly about HIV to your friends, family, colleagues and neighbors is the most powerful way of ending prejudice.


A Blue Tsunami 2008 Is Coming For A Forcast:
For News And Commentary:
 
For Florida  News See:
 
Political Talk For And By Political Junkies
Just Rumors The Rumor Mills

Monday, November 27, 2006

Web Sites Topped TV On Election Night

PEJ: Web Sites Topped TV On Election Night 2006

By E&P Staff and The Associated Press



NEW YORK Election night 2006 will go into history books as a triumph for Democrats and rebuke to President Bush. It was a watershed evening for the news media, too.

The first smoothly run election night of the Internet era left many news organizations unsure of where they stood and should prompt some rethinking in time for 2008, according to a detailed new report by the Project for Excellence in Journalism, to be released Monday.

The journalism think tank monitored several forms of media that night and concluded the best place to follow the story was on Web sites run by television networks -- as opposed to the networks themselves. This included political blogs ranging from DailyKos to Drudge.

Because of the richly detailed Web sites, fed by both results and exit poll data gathered by the networks and The Associated Press, Internet browsers frequently were more up-to-date than the anchors and pundits on the air, said Tom Rosenstiel, the project's director.

The network Web sites did so well this year presumably because they are run by news organizations accustomed to getting information out quickly, the project's report said.

And, said Rosentiel, "It may not be very long before we say, `Maybe I don't even need to have the television on.'"

By contrast, his think tank was less impressed by aggregators such as Google Inc., Time Warner Inc.'s AOL and Yahoo Inc. Except for Yahoo, they lacked the judgment of human editors to avoid conflicting or confusing information getting out.

Newspaper Web sites also appear to be in transition, he said. They have a strong tradition of narrative storytelling that isn't necessarily suited to the pace of election night, he said. (See excerpts from the report on several newspaper sites below.)

CNN held a party election night for some of the Web's most prominent bloggers. Good thing, because mingling and socializing was about all they really had to do. The bloggers serve best as sentinels when things are going wrong, and nothing much went wrong that night, Rosenstiel said.

For the news organizations, though, the best part of this year's election was avoiding the embarrassment of blown calls or faulty exit poll results.

"That's good," Wheatley said, "because it really was a dry run for 2008."

CNN, Fox News Channel and MSNBC offered wall-to-wall coverage on TV that night. To a large extent, the networks-- particularly CNN -- see elections as an opportunity to show off their biggest names, but the slow pace of results this year frequently left them with little to say or do, Rosenstiel said.

"Showcasing talent may not always be the best way of telling the story," he said.

The cable networks should spend less time on pointless talk and more time with reporters, and could even supplement coverage during quieter times with prepared reports on the personalities and issues, he said.

"If they wanted to tell the story of the election rather than put on a live television show, they could have had a much richer profile," he said.

Wheatley wonders whether all networks might soon entice people by video streaming coverage online, on the same site where viewers would also be able to search for results that interest them.

The section of the PEJ report on newspaper sites is excerpted below. The full report can be found on Monday at www.journalism.org.

**

For a generation of election nights, the nation’s newspapers have been relegated to an afterthought. While they might have promised depth and analysis, in reality, it was often less clear what the papers the next day offered that political junkies who had watched well into the night had not already learned.

The Internet offers the potential to turn that upside down. Whatever advantage might be promised in the supposed thoroughness, precision, sophistication and turn-of-phrase
offered by the culture of newspapers and the nature of the edited written word could now be delivered to audiences in real time. Newspapers could compete directly with
television. How did newspaper Web site fare?

After monitoring several sites, one has the sense of a medium in process, still finding itself. Several questions still need to be answered.

It is unclear whether newspapers are comfortable trying to combine giving readers news instantly while providing the depth and nuance for which they are famous. How much
should a newspaper Web site concern itself with breaking news, versus interpreting it, since the two tasks are often at odds when time and resources are limited? One option
would be incorporating real-time news from other sources, such as wire services.

But what is a newspaper site to do if those other sources contradict each other? How much should the secondhand sources be segregated from the newspaper’s original information on the site, or integrated? Do the standards of accuracy that the newspaper promises the next morning hold in the faster environment online? For the biggest sites, such as the Washington Post or The New York Times, how much should they emphasize national versus local if they are directly competing with the broadcast and cable sites that have no hometown?

The answers were not settled in 2006. The questions simply became easier to identify.

To get a sense of this, we monitored four different newspaper Web sites: those of two national papers—the NYTimes.com and the Washingtonpost.com, the largest West Coast paper—the LA times.com, and one that was in the home of a key Senate race—the Virginian Pilot.
*

The report then continues with in-depth looks at how the four sites fared. Its section on The New York Times online, for example, concludes: "Overall, the Times’ Web site offered users a wealth of original content, and some
combination of depth and speed. But in trying to be speedy its potential depth may have been undermined. One senses that trying to walk the line between being an “election night live” site and a newsroom organization that tries to understand and explain, is a divided task that will take some sorting out."

Thursday, November 23, 2006

Blogging In The News

Choosing Who Can See What on Your
Blog



Blogs have a place in many of our everyday lives, even if we
aren't bloggers ourselves. The word blog, short for Web log, is used to describe
personal Web sites that are frequently updated with entries for sharing with
others. They can range from your son's personal blog about baseball statistics
to a well-read and more polished political blog that gets tens of thousands of
hits each day.


A big problem with blogs is privacy. While some people --
especially MySpace fans -- don't mind posting personal news, photos and videos
for anyone to read, many of us hesitate to leave details about our personal
lives online.


This week, we tested a new, free blogging service called Vox, www.vox.com,
from Six Apart Ltd., a blogging software company. One of Vox's best attributes
is its ability to label each individual post, or entry, with a different privacy
filter, so that instead of setting your blog to be entirely private or entirely
public, you can pick and choose what you want to share.


Vox also excels at making it easy to add photos, audio, videos
and book links to your blog without any prior expertise. It lets you incorporate
content from Web sites like YouTube, Amazon and photo-sharing site Flickr in
only a couple of steps. Viewing of each multimedia element can also be
restricted to people you choose. Vox is supported by ads that aren't intrusive
or distracting.


We each made a blog in Vox, and updated them several times. We
found the process to be quick and simple, and the results to be attractive. We
liked the privacy features. But while its intentions are good, Vox has a few
downsides. Its idea of making each blog post visible to different groups is
useful. But everyone who views your privacy-protected entries must also be
registered with Vox, a quick process, but one that will discourage many
potential users.











[Photo]
One example of a Vox blog.

Also puzzling are Vox's categories for labeling those who view
your blog. Everyone must be labeled as friends, family or neighbors, but the
filters that determine who can view your posts don't include neighbors at all.


Vox also doesn't do a great job of implementing many features
that are standard in blog services. These features include interactive elements
on a page such as drag-and-drop organizing.


We got started by signing up for Vox -- a process that involved
entering our email address, creating a password and URL, and entering personal
information. A Design section walked us through choosing a layout and theme from
numerous choices. Katie chose the Cityscape Washington, D.C., theme, which
includes the Capitol and Washington Monument. Walt chose Firefly Night, which
includes the moon and stars and a silhouette of a tree.


To prompt you to blog, the Vox homepage always offers a
Question of the Day, or QOTD. With one click, you can optionally answer the QOTD
in your own blog. When you post your answer, or enter any post, a drop-down menu
lets you choose who can view it: The World (Public), Your Friends and Family,
Your Friends, Your Family or Just You. If, for example, you choose to allow only
your friends to see a post, other groups won't know that they're not seeing the
friends-only post.


If you see another person's Vox blog and would like to bookmark
it so that his or her latest entries are constantly updated on a special page
just for you, you can add that blogger to your neighborhood. Friends and family
are automatically part of your neighborhood, but when choosing who can see your
content, neighborhood isn't an option. Vox plans to make the neighborhood
concept more understandable in an updated version due out by December.











[Combo]
Each individual post can be made viewable by
certain people to provide privacy.

We first posted some simple text entries. Then in the Compose
section, we chose from five colorful icons labeled Photos, Audio, Videos, Books
and Collections. Selecting each icon let us load content from our computer or
from a Web site with that type of content.


In Videos Katie selected a YouTube tab, entered a search word
and found a favorite scene from the TV show "Grey's Anatomy." She
selected a thumbnail image of the scene, hit OK, and the scene loaded onto her
blog moments later. No formatting or HTML code is necessary, a requirement that
used to plague many blogging services.


As we became comfortable using Vox and its privacy options, we
started posting lots of things: vacation photos, a country music audio file to
play along with a post about two-stepping and even Amazon links to our favorite
books. And unless your post or profile is public, nothing can be retrieved using
the Vox search feature.


We found a few hiccups, but mostly forgot about the geeky side
of blogging and enjoyed sharing our digital media. And the idea that no one else
would randomly browse across our content was a comfort. But that poses another
problem: Not everyone will want to register with Vox just to see your protected
content. Vox hopes to offer a way to register others so that your grandmother
will be able to see your family photos online just by entering a username and
password.


Back on the home page of Vox, a section called VoxWatch let us
quickly see any recent activity from our neighbors or ourselves. Recently posted
digital photos, recent comments and recent posts from everyone in our
neighborhood were grouped here.


A helpful Organize section divvies all of your content up into
its proper section: Photos, Books, Audio, Videos, Posts and Comments. This
section let us quickly find a comment that we wanted to reread but didn't feel
like finding on our blog, and it helped us get a better idea of everything that
existed on our blog -- a boon as you add more and more content. This section
also displays the names of those in your Neighborhood, as well as Friends and
Family.


Vox does a nice job of jazzing up the world of blogging. Its
designs are attractive, but it really shines when loading media onto your posts,
making your blog richer in content and more sophisticated in looks. Updates will
continue to be released, improving Vox's weaknesses, the most important of which
is clarifying its group labels. Vox also plans to offer to import your content
from other blogging sites, encouraging experienced users to bring their last
blog along with them instead of leaving it with the old service.


Email: MossbergSolution@wsj.com

Thursday, November 16, 2006

Gay Adoption in the Animal world?

Homosexual Animals Out of the Closet
 
Sara Goudarzi
LiveScience Staff Writer
 
 
From male killer whales that ride the dorsal fin of another male to female bonobos that rub their genitals together, the animal kingdom tolerates all kinds of lifestyles.
A first-ever museum display, "Against Nature?,"  which opened last month at the University of Oslo's Natural History Museum in Norway, presents 51 species of animals exhibiting homosexuality.
"Homosexuality has been observed in more than 1,500 species, and the phenomenon has been well described for 500 of them," said Petter Bockman, project coordinator of the exhibition.
The idea, however, is rarely discussed in the scientific community and is often dismissed as unnatural because it doesn't appear to benefit the larger cause of species continuation.
"I think to some extent people don't think it's important because we went through all this time period in sociobiology where everything had to be tied to reproduction and reproductive success," said Linda Wolfe, who heads the Department of Anthropology at East Carolina University. "If it doesn't have [something to do] with reproduction it's not important."
For pleasure
However, species continuation may not always be the ultimate goal, as many animals, including humans, engage in sexual activities more than is necessary for reproduction. 
"You can make up all kinds of stories: Oh it's for dominance, it's for this, it's for that, but when it comes down to the bottom I think it's just for sexual pleasure," Wolfe told LiveScience.
Conversely, some argue that homosexual sex could have a bigger natural cause than just pure ecstasy: namely evolutionary benefits.
Copulation could be used for alliance and protection among animals of the same sex. In situations when a species is mostly bisexual, homosexual relationships allow an animal to join a pack.
"In bonobos for instance, strict heterosexual individuals would not be able to make friends in the flock and thus never be able to breed," Bockman told LiveScience. "In some bird species that bond for life, homosexual pairs raise young. If they are females, a male may fertilize their eggs. If they are males, a solitary female may mate with them and deposit her eggs in their nest."
Mom and Dad and Dad
Almost a quarter of black swan families are parented by homosexual couples. Male couples sometimes mate with a female just to have a baby. Once she lays the egg, they chase her away, hatch the egg, and raise a family on their own.
"Homosexuality" and "heterosexuality" are terms defined by societal boundaries, invisible in the animal kingdom.
"Many species are hermaphrodites," Bockman said. Hermaphrodites have both male and female sex organs. A lot of marine species have no sex life at all, but just squirt their eggs or semen into sea.
Some creatures even reproduce asexually, by dividing themselves into two organisms. In one species of gecko, females clone themselves.
Like most complex issues, animal homosexuality is challenging and poorly understood. Therefore, educators tend to shy away from covering it in their teaching. Many scientists don't even want to be associated with this type of research.
"I've had primatologists offer to give me their data on homosexual behavior because they didn't want to publish it," Wolfe said.
"Against Nature?" was set up partly to demystify the concept. 
The argument that a homosexual way of living cannot be accepted because it is against the "laws of nature" can now be rejected scientifically, said Geir Soli, project leader for the exhibition. "A main target for this project was to get museums involved in current debate; to show that museums are more than just a gallery for the past."
To learn more, see LiveScience's Top 10 presentation, Gay Animals: Alternate Lifestyles in the Wild.
 
Other Really Wild Stories
Spider Cries Out While Mating The Painful Realities of Hyena Sex Salmon of Small Stature Endowed with Mating Advantage Well-fed Crickets Seek Sex Incessantly, Die Young Mystery of Empty Chicken Sex Solved Smart Bats Have Smaller Testicles Original Story: Homosexual Animals Out of the Closet
 
Visit LiveScience.com for more daily news, views and scientific inquiry with an original, provocative point of view. LiveScience reports amazing, real world breakthroughs, made simple and stimulating for people on the go. Check out our collection of Science, Animal and Dinosaur Pictures, Science Videos, Hot Topics, Trivia, Top 10s, Voting, Amazing Images, Reader Favorites, and more. Get cool gadgets at the new LiveScience Store, sign up for our free daily email newsletter and check out our RSS feeds today!


A Blue Tsunami 2008 Is Coming For A Forcast:
For News And Commentary:
 
For Florida  News See:
 
Political Talk For And By Political Junkies
Just Rumors The Rumor Mills

Tuesday, November 14, 2006

Why Steny hoyer Should Drop out

 
Why Steny Hoyer Should Drop out of the Race With John Murtha:
 
 
 
Sure we could use a antagonist, but in about four years, today we need to show unity and team work, Steny is not a team player.   


A Blue Tsunami 2008 Is Coming For A Forcast:
For News And Commentary:
 
For Florida  News See:
 
Political Talk For And By Political Junkies
Just Rumors The Rumor Mills

Monday, November 13, 2006

A tale of two covers

A tale of two covers: Time's '94 postelection cover touted "G.O.P. Stampede," '06 cover asserts "the center is the new place to be"
The November 21, 1994, edition of Time magazine -- published following that year's congressional elections, in which Republicans gained control of the House of Representatives and the Senate -- featured the headline "G.O.P. Stampede: A Special Report" on the cover, and featured a graphic of an elephant trampling a donkey.
Time Cover 1994
The November 20 edition of Time -- published following the 2006 congressional elections, in which Democrats gained control of the House of Representatives and the Senate -- features the headline "Special Report: The Midterms," and features as the cover story "Why the center is the new place to be," by columnist Joe Klein, with a graphic of a Venn diagram.
Time Cover 2006
Contact:
Time Magazine
E-mail: letters@time.com


A Blue Tsunami 2008 Is Coming For A Forcast:
For News And Commentary:
 
For Florida  News See:
 
Political Talk For And By Political Junkies
Just Rumors The Rumor Mills

Thursday, November 09, 2006

Morning-After

Pundits Take Winners to Task

Victorious Dems lectured by media establishment

On the day after Election Day 2006, pundits
from major U.S. news outlets had, as one would expect, substantial amounts of
political criticism for the party that faced major losses. What is more
remarkable is the amount of criticism and caution directed at the party that won
major gains.



Virtually unanimously, the political commentators providing the initial analyses
of the election for the nation's most influential news outlets downplayed the
progressive aspects of the victory, characterizing the large new crop of
Democrats as overwhelmingly centrist or even conservative. "These Democrats
that were elected last night are conservative Democrats," declared CBS
News chief Washington correspondent Bob Schieffer (Early Show, 11/8/06). CNN's
Andrea Koppel (American Morning, 11/8/06)
referred to the "new batch of moderate and conservative Democrats just
elected who will force their party to shift towards the center."



"This is not a majority made from cookie-cutter liberals," wrote
Eleanor Clift for Newsweek online (11/8/06).
"Some are pro-life, some pro-gun, some sound so Republican they might be in
the other party if it weren't for President Bush and the Iraq War." This
echoed the thoughts of Fox News' Carl Cameron,
who found among victorious Democrats "many pro lifers, a lot of second
amendment supporters, those who oppose gay marriage and support bans on flag
burning. Things of this nature."



Not that many were "pro-life," actually; NARAL
(11/8/06) counted 20 pro-choice votes among the 28 announced House newcomers.
Does anyone think that incoming class is going to make a Democratic-controlled
house less likely to block new abortion restrictions? And gun control (for
better or worse) hasn't been a serious Democratic priority for more than a
decade. One ideological stance that was actually widespread among the incoming
Democrats, and one that is actually likely to alter Democratic Party priorities,
is an opposition to NAFTA-style trade agreements and an embrace of "fair
trade" principles (Public Citizen,
11/8/06)--but this key trend was little noted by the morning-after pundits,
presumably because such views are considered akin to a belief in leprechauns by
the media establishment (Extra!, 7-8/01). One
exception was the Los Angeles Times editorial
page, which did take notice--and alarm: "Democrats who wooed anxious voters
with sermons about the evils of outsourcing will be reluctant to support freer
trade," the paper editorialized (11/8/06), deeming this development
"bad for the country."



In the Washington Post (11/8/06), Peter Baker
and Jim VandeHei stressed that "party politics will be shaped by the
resurgence of 'Blue Dog' Democrats, who come mainly from the South and from
rural districts in the Midwest and often vote like Republicans. Top Democrats
such as Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.) see these middle-of-the-road lawmakers as the
future of the party in a nation that leans slightly right of center."



It's not surprising that Emanuel would see the world that way, since he's a
centrist himself who has long been trying to push the Democrats to the right.
But the "Blue Dogs" are far from a majority in the new crop of
Representatives (nine, according to the Arkansas
Democrat Gazette
, 11/9/06), or in the Democrat's total ranks (44), so
their influence on the party as a whole will be far from overpowering.



What's more, even those "Blue Dogs" are not likely to vote with
Republicans on top Democratic Party issues: A Media
Matters
survey found (11/8/06) that all 27 new Democrats whose races had
been called support raising the minimum wage and changing course in Iraq, and
they oppose privatizing Social Security. Media
Matters
found only five openly described themselves as
"pro-life."



It’s not just centrist Democrats like Emanuel who are pushing journalists to
take this line: CNN anchor Rick Sanchez posed
a question (11/8/06) to National Journal
writer John Mercurio: "I heard this at least five or six times tonight from
Republicans. They say sure, these Democrats that you've elected tonight are
running as moderates. Some even sound like conservatives. They have crew cuts,
social conservatives, talk about moral issues. When they get to Washington,
they're going to find their leadership is filled with liberals. Is there really
a dysfunction there?"



Conservative New York Times columnist David
Brooks put forth a similar take (11/9/06): "On Tuesday the muscular middle
took control of America. Voters kicked out Republicans but did not swing to the
left." Brooks wrote that Democrats "will have to show they have not
been taken over by their bloggers or their economic nationalists, who will
alienate them from the suburban office park moms."



This supposed conflict between what Clift called "the demands of the
antiwar left" and "the more moderate voices that helped [House
Democrats] win control of the chamber" was a prominent theme. Baker and
VandeHei allowed how "the passion of the antiwar movement helped propel
party ctivists in this election year," but said that "the Democrats'
victory was built on the back of more centrist candidates seizing
Republican-leaning districts."



This assumption that war critics and centrists are two opposing camps is
peculiar, given that 56 percent of exit-polled voters said they opposed the war;
surely they represent the center of opinion, rather than the 42 percent who
expressed support. In any case, opposition to the war was a widespread theme
among the "more centrist candidates" who captured Republican-held
seats (TomPaine.co, 11/8/06).



The pundits' prescription for the Democrats hardly varies (Extra!,
7-8/06), so it was unsurprising to see them urging "bipartisanship"
and a move to the right. "In private talks before the election, Emanuel and
other top Democrats told their members they cannot allow the party's liberal
wing to dominate the agenda next year," Baker and Jim VandeHei reported,
citing the centrist Democrats whose analysis of the election results was nearly
identical with that of media insiders. (Rick Perlstine made a strong case on the
New Republic's website--11/8/06--that Emanuel
had less to do with the Democratic victory than did the netroots that he
despises.)



"The voters, tired of Washington's divisive ways, want to see the two
parties cooperate," wrote Newsweek's
Clift. Oddly, though, those voters had recently told Newsweek (Newsweek.co,
10/21/06) that 51 percent of them wanted impeachment to be a priority (either
high or low) of a new Democratic majority. It's likely that these people, who
wouldn't mind seeing Bush tried for high crimes and misdemeanors, aren't
particularly eager to see the representatives they sent to Washington working
with him to advance his agenda.



One thing that the new Democratic legislature must surely avoid doing, according
to the media analysts, is investigate the old Republican executive: "The
danger is that the campaign of '06 will simply continue under the name of
'government,'" wrote Dick Mayer for CBSNews.com
(11/8/06). "Many Democrats, for example, are dead set on a new round of
aggressive hearings about everything from pre-war intelligence to homeland
security to the hunt for Osama bin Laden. The theater of Grand Congressional
inquisitions is generally an enemy of statesmanship."



It's troubling, to say the least, when people in the journalism profession see
"investigation" and "inquisition" as synonymous. The New
York Times
' Robin Toner (11/8/06), who was exceptional in not seeing her
morning-after analysis as an opportunity to scold the Democratic winners, also
stood out in seeing the exercise of Congress' investigatory powers as normal and
perhaps even beneficial; of the Democratic House leaders, she wrote that
"in many ways, their greatest power will be their ability to investigate,
hold hearings and provide the oversight that they asserted was so lacking in
recent years."



Other journalists couldn't resist using their analysis of the Republicans'
political failings as a chance to get in generic smears of the Democrats.
"The outcome brought an end to the Republican Revolution that began in 1994
but lost its way," wrote Michael Duffy and Karen Tumulty for Time.com
(11/8/06), "as the party that came to Washington to cut government spending
and clean up a corrupt institution ran into scandals of its own and found itself
spending like drunken Democrats." Presumably a knowledge of political
history is a job requirement for being a political correspondent at Time;
when Duffy and Tumulty look back on the past 50 years of U.S. administrations,
do they really see it divided into spendthrift Democrats and frugal Republicans?



Suffice it to say that when Newt Gingrich and company swept into power in 1994,
no one in the mainstream media was explaining Democratic losses by saying that
the politicians who came to Washington in 1974 in response to Nixon's corruption
ended up "stealing like Republican crooks."



Tom Brokaw offered a similarly foggy history lesson on election night. "If
the Democrats do very well, will it be a huge philosophical shift? Maybe not,
because a lot of these Democrats ran to the center. They didn't run like they
were running in 1972 again. They ran as more pragmatic public servants this
time."



For the record, the party breakdown of the 93rd Congress (1973-75): 242
Democrats, 192 Republicans.

Feel free to respond to FAIR ( http://us.f345.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=fair@fair.org
)



Monday, November 06, 2006

More GOP High-Jinks

This piece claims it's paid for by the Republican Steele for Senate campaign.
(Click on images for full-sized version):



Did you know that those guys -- Mfume, Curry, and Johnson all endorsed
Michael Steele? Well, except that they didn't.


Yet this is all designed to look like a Democratic Party flyer. And look at
the next page:



Those are all Democrats except for Ehrlich and Steele.


These guys can't win honestly, so they're trying to lie and confuse their way
through the election.

HOMO Haggard


news photo

From bodyworkformen.com



Ex-Gay Prostitute: Haggard Will Probably Emerge To Claim He's Been “Cured” Of
Homosexuality

Sunday, November 05, 2006

The Politics Of Hate


The GOP's dwindling anti-gay parade


Polls show
Americans turning their backs on the divisive politics of homosexuality. Will
hard-liners in the heartland, like Colorado's Marilyn Musgrave, be forced to
follow?

By Michael Scherer



Nov. 03, 2006 In this season of porno-themed political ads and anti-gay
marriage amendments, Colorado Rep. Marilyn Musgrave is, surprisingly, tacking in
a different direction. She no longer wants to talk in public about the
"radical homosexual agenda" and its malicious impact on the American
family. "I am running on a platform of security. Economic security. Border
security. National security," the corn-husk blond Republican announced at
the start of a candidate debate last week in Windsor.


This is a dramatic departure from the Musgrave of old, the Pentecostal mother
of four who came to politics in 1990 as a school committee member determined to
stamp out sex education. As a state legislator in Colorado, she campaigned
constantly against gay marriage and attempted to deny benefits to the same-sex
partners of state employees. In Congress, she has twice served as the chief
sponsor of a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. "As we face the
issues we're facing today, I don't think there is anything more important than
the marriage issue," she announced, just six weeks ago, at a Washington
conference for values voters. "If we have gay marriage, our religious
liberties are gone."


But in her home district, despite its conservative pedigree, a call to arms
in the culture war no longer plays the way it once did. In recent weeks, she has
backtracked on her Washington comments, saying they were taken out of context.
At the same time, Musgrave's Democratic opponent, Angie Paccione, has gone on
the offensive, despite polls that suggest about 60 percent of the district
supports a constitutional ban on gay marriage. "Marilyn Musgrave is out of
touch," Paccione says in a recent television advertisement: "She said
that her gay-marriage agenda is the most important issue facing the United
States of America … Are you kidding me?"


The reason for this turnabout may signal a transformation of the national
debate over homosexual relationships, which have been a defining issue in recent
election cycles. Across the country, candidates who have built their careers
fighting homosexual rights now find themselves on the losing side of the polls. In Pennsylvania, Republican Sen. Rick Santorum,
who once compared gay sex to "man-on-dog" relations, appears sure to
lose his campaign for reelection. In Ohio, the polls are equally grim for Ken
Blackwell, a Republican candidate for governor, who once said gay marriage
"defies barnyard logic." In Minnesota, Republican state Sen. Michele
Bachmann, who called gay matrimony a "ticking time bomb" because
"little children would be forced to learn that homosexuality is
normal," is fighting a tight battle for an open Republican seat.


Homosexuality is not the primary issue in any of these races, but it is
notable that all of the candidates have tamped down their anti-gay rhetoric as
the election approaches. "If things go as they look like they might, in the
heartland of America voters are going to reject candidates with extremist
political positions," says Ted Trimpa, a gay political activist and
attorney in Denver who is active in Colorado politics. "What that says to
me is the pendulum has swung, that the luster of using us as a political toy has
passed."


To be sure, the victory against anti-gay politics will be incremental at
best. Eight states are poised to pass constitutional amendments that will ban
gay marriage on Tuesday, and in the South and Midwest, a growing number of
Democratic candidates have come out against gay marriage, most notably Tennessee
Senate contender Harold Ford Jr. But as Musgrave's tight race in Colorado shows,
there are clear crosscurrents that suggest Americans are no longer as interested
in politicians who use homosexuality as a wedge issue. Recently, Dick Armey, the
former GOP House majority leader, was quoted saying the religious right has
become a group of "real nasty bullies" who have distracted from the
conservative cause. A recent study by the Cato Institute argued that libertarian voters, who have sided with the
Republicans in recent years, are increasingly defecting, in part because of the
GOP's focus on social intolerance. "They have cooler feelings towards the
Christian Coalition and warmer feelings towards gays and lesbians than do other
voters," the Cato authors wrote about the libertarian vote, which is strong
in the Rocky Mountain West.


The trend can be clearly seen in Colorado, home to James Dobson's Focus on
the Family, where voters are increasingly turning to the Democratic Party and
away from the divisive politics of homosexuality. "It has sort of worn
itself out for some voters," said John Straayer, a political scientist at
Colorado State University. "I think the Democrats' success is as much
attributable to what the Republicans are doing than to what [Democrats] are
doing themselves."


As in other states, Colorado voters are expected to pass a constitutional
amendment to bar gay marriage on Tuesday. But in a sign of the times, polls
suggest voters might also pass a referendum that will give gays and lesbians all
the domestic partnership rights of heterosexual marriage.


Until recently, Colorado has been a bulwark of socially conservative
Republicanism. In 1992, a majority of Coloradans -- 54 percent -- passed
Amendment 2, a state constitutional change that prohibited laws to protect gays
and lesbians from discrimination. Though courts later threw out the law,
Colorado was dubbed "the hate state" by pundits across the country.
But since then, clear signs of moderation have swept the state. Last year,
Republican Gov. Bill Owens vetoed legislation to protect gays and lesbians
against employment discrimination on the grounds that it duplicated current law.
Still, in his veto letter, he harshly chastised members of his own party who had
likened homosexuality to an "abomination" and pedophilia. "The
discourse fell far short of what I consider to be an acceptable standard worthy
of our great state," Owens wrote. "It was, instead, marked by a coarseness and insensitivity that was simply
wrong."


More recently, retiring Rep. Joel Hefley, a Republican from Colorado Springs,
has refused to endorse his party's candidate to take his seat, in part because
the candidate, Doug Lamborn, and his supporters attacked his primary opponent
for supporting the "homosexual agenda," a tactic Hefley called
"sleazy."


Meanwhile, Democrats have been making dramatic gains in the state by focusing
on economic issues. They have been aided by the third-party campaign spending of
several wealthy liberals, including Pat Stryker, an heir to a medical equipment
fortune, and Tim Gill, an entrepreneur who founded the technology company Quark.


All of these trends have put pressure on Musgrave, who oversees the 4th
Congressional District, most of which has not voted to elect a Democrat to
Congress since the early 1970s. Stretching from the northern Rockies to
Colorado's tumbleweed-strewn southeastern plains, the district is just slightly
smaller than the state of Indiana, including everyone from Western cattle
ranchers to mountain-bound retirees who regularly pass herds of bighorn sheep on
their way to fill their prescriptions. First elected in 2002, Musgrave pulled
through a costly reelection fight in 2004 against Stan Matsunaka, a local
attorney, who began the attack against her for her focus on gay marriage.
"I just kept calling her 'one-trick pony,'" explained Matsunaka.
"We made a lot of headroom saying her heart wasn't in the district."
Liberal and gay-friendly interest groups had also sunk nearly $2 million into
the race, eating into Musgrave's natural advantage. Though President Bush won
the district with 58 percent of the vote, Musgrave scored a far narrower
51-to-45 victory over Matsunaka.


Two years later, she is locked in a tossup race with Paccione, hurt in part
by the national mood that is turning against Republicans -- President Bush's
district approval rating, according to one poll, hovers at 40 percent.
Apparently aware of her vulnerability, Musgrave has run a low-key race,
eschewing media interviews, including a request from Salon, and holding only
occasional public events. Instead of stumping for large crowds, she has relied
on a series of ubiquitous television attack ads paid for by her considerable
$2.9 million campaign war chest and the National Republican Congressional
Committee, which has committed about $1 million. The ads assault Paccione as a
liberal on immigration and taxes, and repeatedly mention the fact that Paccione
once filed for personal bankruptcy in the early 1990s.


Paccione, meanwhile, has run a spirited campaign, funded with nearly $2
million she has raised, that includes daily door-knocking and rallies. A former
professional basketball player, Paccione grew up in Brooklyn, N.Y., the daughter
of a black mother and an Italian father. At a recent campaign stop in Estes
Park, a mountain community at the western edge of the district, she rallied a
mostly retired audience by demonizing the record of her opponent and President
Bush. "How will Colorado be different in two years?" Paccione asked,
rhetorically. "We won't be embarrassed by our congresswoman."


She spoke while sitting before a large plate-glass window at a local
restaurant that framed the snowcapped mountains and a small pond where mallards
squabbled in the sun. A hundred yards away, a herd of about 50 mountain elk had
taken up residence by the road amid the ponderosa pine. When asked, Paccione
tries to downplay her own opposition to amending the state constitution to ban
same-sex marriage. Yet, she compares the need for domestic partnerships for gays
and lesbians to the 1960s struggle for civil rights: "My mom's black. My
dad is white," she says. "It wasn't until 1967 that it was legal for
them to be married across this land."


Though the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has failed to invest
heavily in the race, Paccione has been aided by two liberal independent groups,
ProgressNow and the deceptively named Coloradans for Life. But the real X-factor
in the race is a Reform Party candidate named Eric Eidsness, a registered
Republican who abandoned an early plan to challenge Musgrave in the primary. In
most polls, Eidsness scores in the mid-to-high single digits, likely dragging
more support away from Paccione than Musgrave. A former naval officer who served
in Vietnam, he presents himself as a common-sense alternative to the two
political parties.


At the Windsor debate, he objected outright to the suggestion that the
federal or state government should pass constitutional amendments to ban gay
marriage. "I will lock and load to fight a federal government [that] will
interfere with my private family decision-making and personal decisions,"
he said, "whether it's two people who have the choice of partners, or the
right of a woman to choose, even though I have a problem with the morality of
abortion." He was expressing a Western ethos, born of the plains and taken
to the mountains, a worldview that an increasing number of Coloradans appear to
embrace. Statewide polling from 2004 to 2006 consistently shows that gay
marriage is among the least important issues facing the state, pulling in just 1
or 2 percent of voters who say it is the most important issue.


When the question came to Musgrave, she was almost sheepish in her answer.
"It will come as no surprise to anyone in the room that I support
traditional marriage, the union of one man and one woman," she said.
"I think that is the ideal environment for children to be raised, and I
think we ought to be very concerned about our children." Though she had
been given a minute to respond, her answer was less than 30 seconds. She ceded
the rest of her time, apparently eager to start talking about something else.





--
By Michael Scherer




VIDEO NEWS WIRE

Politico 44 President's Calendar

AlterNet.org: Video




Days Since Michael Steele Said He Won't Resign

23 Days, 23 Hours, 32 Minutes, 38 Seconds.

"The Playa" said he wouldn't resign as head of the RNC ("Not me Baby! Nuh-uh. Not happening. No way, no how.")

Followers

ShareThis

http://feeds.salon.com/salon/greenwald_podcast_rss

The Real News Network

  

Learn more about the Neighborhood Volunteer Program

John McCain

The 50 State Strategy

Buy a Democracy Bond

My site was nominated for Best Pop Culture Blog!

Politics on HuffingtonPost.com

MSNBC.com: Countdown With Olbermann

RawStory.com Headlines

The Nation: Top Stories

Evri Skyscraper Widget

YouTube :: Videos by politicstv

Contributors