Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » GOP House leadership should resign (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   
Author Topic: GOP House leadership should resign
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I agree LoJ, but...telling Foley to chill, warning pages, and asking others to keep an eye on him isn't nothing, or just shrugging it off.
Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LoverOfJoy
Member
Member # 157

 - posted      Profile for LoverOfJoy   Email LoverOfJoy   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
True, I didn't know all those things were done. If they were, why are dems complaining about being left out of the loop. If the pages were all warned, you'd think that some democrat would have overheard and spread it around some more.
Posts: 3639 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FiredrakeRAGE
Member
Member # 1224

 - posted      Profile for FiredrakeRAGE   Email FiredrakeRAGE   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Adam -

True. Guardians of the 'privilege' of doing what you wish with the products of your labor.

Posts: 3538 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Or, in my case, about 300 bucks more of the products of my labor per year.

I be free now?

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
winkey151
Member
Member # 2910

 - posted      Profile for winkey151   Email winkey151   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Do any of you know what was in the emails? Not much is said about it.

You do know that Foley resigned because of Instant Messages he sent and not the emails, don't you.

I personally think Foley is disgusting but the only thing I have heard on the news about the emails he sent was that he was overly friendly and not professional. So far that is what is being said that anyone had any knowledge of.

If the emails he sent had lewd things in them, and people knew about those things for a while... then I think that people have a right to ask for heads to roll, but I want to know what was in the emails first.

I have heard it said that the Instant Messages have just come to the surface recently.

Does anyone have any information that refutes that?

Posts: 865 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
winkey151,

quote:
but I want to know what was in the emails first.
I think it was,

quote:
Have you ever seen a grown man naked? Do you like gladiator movies?

Foley

[Smile]

LetterRip

[ October 02, 2006, 11:46 PM: Message edited by: LetterRip ]

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
and also asking the page about his masturbation habits, and saying something about himself, ending: "dies that make you a little horny?".
Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
winkey151
Member
Member # 2910

 - posted      Profile for winkey151   Email winkey151   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RickyB:
and also asking the page about his masturbation habits, and saying something about himself, ending: "dies that make you a little horny?".

That was from the instant messages.

I already told you that I personally think Foley is disgusting for the things he said in the IM's. What I am talking about are the emails that were already known by the RNC and the newspapers in Florida.

Isn't that what is in question? What was known by the RNC before the IM conversations were made public?

Posts: 865 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The emails were less explicit, but any serious investigation would have uncovered enough proof. Here's a timeline:

2003
Foley has a sexually explicit instant message exchange with a former page. Using the screen name "Maf54," Foley and the page discuss masturbation. (Source: ABC News, 9/29/06.)

Fall 2005
An e-mail exchange between Foley and a male page of Louisiana Republican Rep. Rodney Alexander is sexually suggestive but not as explicit as the instant messages. Some observers now say the banter reflects the kinds of tools a sexual predator might employ to engage a victim and should have set off alarms when discovered later. Foley asks how old the boy is and what he wants for his birthday and asks the boy to e-mail a "pic" of himself. (Source: Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.)

Date unknown, "Fall" 2005
At some point Alexander's chief of staff calls Tim Kennedy, a staff assistant in the office of House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., according to a news release from Hastert's office, and says that Alexander "had," meaning possessed the text of, an e-mail exchange between Foley and a former House page. Kennedy "did not reveal the specific text of the email but expressed that he and Congressman Alexander were concerned about it." The release does not give a specific date, or even a month, and does not identify Alexander's chief of staff. (Source: Hastert news release, 9/30/06.)

Date unknown, "Fall" 2005
Kennedy "immediately" went to his boss, Hastert deputy chief of staff Mike Stokke. Stokke tells Kennedy to contact the speaker's in-house counsel, Ted Van Der Meid. (Source: Hastert news release, 9/30/06.)

Date unknown, "Fall" 2005
Van Der Meid tells Kennedy to contact the clerk of the House, who is the House officer responsible for the page program. Later this same day, Stokke meets with Alexander's chief of staff. "Once again the specific content of the email was not discussed," at that meeting. Apparently the same day, Stokke called the clerk to come to the speaker's office to meet with Alexander's chief of staff. Instead, the clerk and Alexander's chief of staff went to the clerk's office to discuss the matter. The clerk asked to see the e-mail. Alexander's "office" declined, citing privacy. "The clerk asked if the email exchange was of a sexual nature and was assured it was not." Instead, Alexander's chief of staff called the exchange "over-friendly." Hastert's release never gives the name of the clerk of the House, but gives the gender as male. (Source: Hastert news release, 9/30/06.)

Date unknown, "Fall" of 2005
The clerk contacts Rep. John Shimkus, R-Ill., chairman of the Page Board, and asks for an "immediate" meeting. It "appears" that the clerk also notified Van Der Meid that the clerk was "taking action." (Source: Hastert news release, 9/30/06.)

Date unknown, "Fall" 2005 The clerk and Shimkus meet and then "immediately" meet with Foley to ask Foley about the e-mail. The clerk and Shimkus "made it clear" that to "avoid even the appearance of impropriety and at the request of the parents" that Foley was to "immediately cease any communication with the young man." Later that day on the House floor, the clerk told Van Der Meid that Shimkus and he had taken "corrective action." (Source: Hastert news release.) At that meeting, Foley claimed the communications were "innocent." (Source: New York Times, 10/2/02.)

Note: Hastert's office claims that during this time, Kennedy, Van Der Meid and Stokke "did not discuss the matter with others in the Speaker's Office" to protect the child's privacy. (Source: Hastert news release, 9/30/06.)

Nov. 16, 2005
Denny Hastert nominates Karen Haas, his former floor assistant, to replace Jeff Trandahl as clerk of the House. (Source: Hastert news release, 9/16/05.) Trandahl, who worked for Republican members of Congress for 15 years before serving as clerk for seven, announced his departure on Sept. 30, effective Nov. 18, to serve as head of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. (Source: National Fish and Wildlife Foundation press release, 9/30/05.)

Date unknown, "Spring" 2006
Alexander tells Rep. Tom Reynolds, R-N.Y., chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, about the Foley events from the previous fall. The NRCC's job is to get Republicans elected to the House. (Source: Hastert news release, 9/30/06.)

Date unknown, "Spring" 2006
Kevin Madden, spokesman for House Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, says now that Boehner at this time had a "brief, nonspecific" conversation with Alexander about the Foley matter. Madden said Boehner could not remember now if Boehner had told other GOP leaders. (Source: New York Times 10/2/06.)

Date unknown, apparently "Spring" 2006
In a meeting, Reynolds tells Hastert "that an investigation was conducted by the Clerk of the House and Shimkus" of the Page Board. Hastert now "does not explicitly recall this conversation," but Hastert "has no reason to dispute" Reynold's claim. (Source: Hastert news release.) Rep. Dale Kildee of Michigan, the lone Democrat on the Page Board, releases a statement that says, "Any statement by Mr. Reynolds or anyone else that the House Page Board ever investigated Mr. Foley is completely untrue ... I was never informed of the allegations about Mr. Foley's inappropriate communications with a House Page and I was never involved in any inquiry into this matter." (Source: statement, Kildee, 9/30/06.)

July 2006
Foley gives $100,000 to the NRCC as part of the "Battleground Program." (Source: New York Times, 10/2/06.)

Sept. 28, 2006
The first e-mail exchanges between Foley and a male page are reported by ABC News. Foley dismisses them as "overly friendly" but not inappropriate. (Source: New York Times, 9/30/06.)

Sept. 29, 2006
Other pages come forward with sexually explicit instant messages. Foley resigns from Congress. (Source: New York Times, 9/30/06.)

Sept. 29, 2006
At a signing ceremony for the military commission bill, Hastert tells reporters that Foley has "done the right thing." Hastert says he has "asked John Shimkus who is head of the Page Board, to look into this issue regarding Congressman Foley." (Source: Washington Post, 9/30/06.) As the scandal breaks, Hastert claims he first learned about the Foley situation the previous week. (Source: Washington Post, 10/2/06.)

Sept. 29, 2006
House Majority Leader Boehner first tells the Washington Post he had learned in the spring 2006 about inappropriate "contact" between Foley and a 16-year-old page and that he had told Hastert back then. Boehner later contacted the Post and said he could not remember whether he had talked to Hastert. (Source, Washington Post, 10/1/06.)

Sept. 29, 2006
Hastert directs his chief of staff and outside counsel to conduct an internal review to determine the facts and circumstances surrounding contact with the Office of the Speaker regarding the Foley matter. (Source: Hastert news release, 9/30/06.)

Sept. 30, 2006
Reynolds releases a statement saying that in spring 2006, he informed Hastert of the investigation into the Foley e-mails conducted by the clerk of the House and Shimkus. (Source: Hastert news release, 9/30/06.) "Despite the fact that I had not seen the e-mails in question, and Mr. Alexander told me that the parents didn't want the matter pursued, I told the speaker of the conversation Mr. Alexander had with me," Reynolds said. (Source: CBS News, 9/30/06.)

Sept. 30, 2006
Hastert releases a brief timeline of the Foley issue prepared by chief of staff and outside counsel. (Source: Hastert news release, 9/30/06.)

Oct. 1, 2006
Hastert writes Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Hastert asks Gonzales to conduct an investigation to see if Foley broke the law. Hastert says the sexually explicit instant messages and the "over friendly" e-mails are "two different and distinct communications." Hastert requests that Gonzales also launch an investigation into the sexually explicit instant messages specifically, and look "into the extent there are persons who knew or had possession of these messages but did not report them to the proper authorities." With respect to the instant messages, Hastert asks Gonzales to look into "who had specific knowledge of the content of any sexually explicit communications" between Foley and any pages. Bush is asked to determine if any state laws were violated.

Oct. 1, 2006
The FBI announces an inquiry to determine if Foley broke any laws. (Source: New York Times, 10/2/06.)

Oct. 2, 2006
Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, tells reporters in a conference call that her organization received the e-mails, but not the instant messages, on July 21, 2006, and sent them along to the FBI that same day. Sloan says the FBI's apparent failure to begin an investigation then makes them complicit in "dropping the ball" like House leaders. The FBI declines to say when its investigation began.

Source:
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2006/10/02/time_line/index.html

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Drake, glad you pointed out the different 'hay' to Tom cause I was all revved up to do so.

Dem or GOP or anybody else; people that take advantage of kids should get the axe from whomever kmows about it. And covering it up is just as bad.

Hell, I might even have understood if they covered it up but forced him to step down and get help. Not been happy, but I could have understood. But to do nothing but cover it up...

KE

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, like Jesse pointed out, they didn't do "nothing", but they didn't do all they could by a longshot. PLus, as per the GOP modus operandi of late, they chose to assume the best and not check their assumptions.
Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DaveS
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't think it's as innocent as assuming the best and not checking their assumptions. Their assuming that Foley's email messages were innocent, just overly friendly, was a convenient interpretation. They encouraged him to restrain himself, nothing more.

You can also think of politicians as predators in the sense that they will avoid situations that frustrate their political objectives and seek out ones that help. As Hastert pointed out, this came up in the context of an election cycle. These days they're always somewhere in an election cycle.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Have you ever seen a grown man naked? Do you like gladiator movies?"

The whine of ancient ur-oboes playing modern film scores attempting to evoke the spirits of ancient Egypt, Greexe, and Rome if not necessarily i that order.

A crach of gong. The captive slave, Steve Reeves, is dragged semi-naked into the senator's private counsel chamber, muscles glistening with sweat and Coppertone Insta-Tan...

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tom Curtis:
I will concede that given the attempted impeachment of Clinton, they ought to resign on the basis of consistency.

If consistency is the goal, we have plenty of precedent on how to handle this:

In 1983, Democratic Rep. Gerry Studds of Massachusetts was caught in a similar situation. In his case, Studds had sex with a male teenage page (something Foley hasn't been charged with by the way).

Did Studds express contrition? Resign? Quite the contrary. He rejected Congress' censure of him and continued to represent his district until his retirement in 1996.

In 1989, Rep. Barney Frank admitted he'd lived with Steve Gobie, a male prostitute who ran a gay sex-for-hire ring out of Frank's apartment. Frank, it was later discovered, used his position to fix 33 parking tickets for Gobie.

What happened to Frank? The House voted 408-18 to reprimand him -- a slap on the wrist. Today he's an honored Democratic member of Congress, much in demand as a speaker and "conscience of the party."

n 2001, President Clinton commuted the prison sentence of Illinois Rep. Mel Reynolds, who had sex with a 16-year-old campaign volunteer and pressured her to lie about it.

So if we want to be consistent, Foley should be reprimanded or censured and he can choose if he wants to accept that punishment. If Foley has done anything that would lead to jail time, President Bush's pardon would be consistent with precedent. That would be consistent.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Colin JM0397
Member
Member # 916

 - posted      Profile for Colin JM0397   Email Colin JM0397   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Too bad the US gov't isn't global (yet). They could pull a page out of the Catholic play book and assign him to another country.
Posts: 4738 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I suppose the Republicans could assign him to another district. [Smile]
Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DaveS
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
G2, Is it your understanding that prior to this event, bad behavior was strictly a Democrat phenomenon? Most people are horrified that the man who heads up commissions to protect children from indecency would turn out to be a sexual predator, but Sean Hannity blames the boys, and Tony Snow asks what's the big deal about some "naughty emails". You also aren't too concerned and think this is only deserving of a reprimand or censure. How would it play with the Republican base for Bush, Frist, Hastert to argue for that?

[ October 03, 2006, 04:32 PM: Message edited by: DaveS ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Funny you should leave out Dan crane in your little historical review...

What Barney Frank did is simply not criminal, nor is it a violation of ethics. The parking ticket thing is the only real problem, and it's a piddling scale of influence peddling.

Bubba's pardons stank, but I can understand the man for the "fock you" they expressed.

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DaveS:
G2, Is it your understanding that prior to this event, bad behavior was strictly a Democrat phenomenon?

No, I was just pointing out what consistent would really mean.

quote:
Originally posted by DaveS:
Most people are horrified that the man who heads up commissions to protect children from indecency would turn out to be a sexual predator, but Sean Hannity blames the boys, and Tony Snow asks what's the big deal about some "naughty emails".

I think most people are horrified by anyone that is a sexual predator regardless of gender or profession. Foley sent out some very inappropriate emails to minors and for that deserved to lose his job. I have not seen Hannity's claims, can you link them in here? As for being a big deal, it is and perhaps the punishment is the loss of his job but to classify him as a sexual predator is a little premature. Let's wait to see what turns up and if he actually did anything. If talking inappropriately about sex around 16 and 17 years old boys becomes a crime, there may be a lot of people heading for felony convictions. BTW, the age of consent in DC and in other places is 16 - how do you think that should play in this?

quote:
Originally posted by DaveS:
You also aren't too concerned and think this is only deserving of a reprimand or censure. How would it play with the Republican base for Bush, Frist, Hastert to argue for that?

If the only thing was emails and instant messages then has a law been broken? Certainly it's bad and he should have resigned and that goes well beyond reprimand or censure so they don't have to argue for anything.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RickyB:
Funny you should leave out Dan crane in your little historical review...

I don't recall Dan Crane, can you enlighten us?
quote:
Originally posted by RickyB:

What Barney Frank did is simply not criminal, nor is it a violation of ethics. The parking ticket thing is the only real problem, and it's a piddling scale of influence peddling.

He had a prostitution ring running out of his house. Yeah, nothing wrong with that! [Roll Eyes]
quote:
Originally posted by RickyB:

Bubba's pardons stank, but I can understand the man for the "fock you" they expressed.

As long as there's a political motive it's all good then?
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Here is are articles regarding

Gerry Studds

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerry_Studds

and

Barney Frank

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barney_Frank

and an article from the post regarding Frank

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/longterm/tours/scandal/gobie2.htm

RickyB,

hiring a prostitute (Frank apparently paid Gobie the first time) is generally considered unethical.

LetterRip

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
G2,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Crane

same deal sex with a 17 year old female page.

quote:
He had a prostitution ring running out of his house. Yeah, nothing wrong with that!
Once he learned of it (from his landlord) he kicked out Gobie - your accusation is misleading.

LetterRip

[ October 03, 2006, 06:00 PM: Message edited by: LetterRip ]

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"hiring a prostitute (Frank apparently paid Gobie the first time) is generally considered unethical."

I thought it was generally considered illegal?

Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I am amused by the horror and disgust and shock and outrage so massively expressed regarding Foley. I'm not endorsing his behavior, but the censure it is receiving is a consequence of the 'censure first-- consider later- culture of the past decade.

Censure criticism of the war as non-patriotic.

Janet Jackson's boob pops out and now we censure free speech on the airwaves, moving the likes of Howard Stern to extraterrestrial space satellite radio.

This administration has classified as top secret so much, from Cheney's energy task force meetings to Laura's pedicure schedules, that when something
questionable slips through the web of secrecy... SHAZAM!!!

So yeah, the way Gerry Studds (wadda name, huh?) was handled in '83 is very different from the way Foley and Hastert are being treated now.

Different fortress constructions invite different siege strategies...

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DaveS
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
My apologies, in his segment about Foley, Hannity cut to the chase to remind us that Monica Lewinsky was just a teenager when Clinton had his way with her, except that she was actually 22. It was Matt Drudge who blamed the victims, calling them "16 and 17 year old beasts". Rush says it was a Democrat plot and they set him up. According to him,
quote:
"There's no concern about the kid," and blamed Democrats, because "[i]n their hearts and minds and their crotches, they don't have any problem with what Foley did.
So many sleazeball hacks to hear from, so little time...

[ October 03, 2006, 11:49 PM: Message edited by: DaveS ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DaveS
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Certainly it's bad and he should have resigned and that goes well beyond reprimand or censure so they don't have to argue for anything.
Oh, I thought you were making a point.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"On the October 2 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh suggested that the recent resignation of former Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL), which came after allegations that Foley sent inappropriate emails to a 16-year-old male congressional page, was a "set ... up" "coordinated" by the Democrats."

Damn. Just when the masssive right wing conspiracy that Hillary and Bill complained of seems to either be laughed out of existence or to have taken over the country, along comes a massive left wing conspiracy.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Liberal
Member
Member # 2888

 - posted      Profile for Liberal   Email Liberal   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Saw the news today, Hastert said he wouldn't resign even though many more republicans including the head of the page program, the Republican majority leader, and several other reps all said they told Hastert about multiple problems multiple times and they gave up pursuing what they thought was a serious problem because he said he "would take care of it." They are all basically saying that his strong and ardent denials of knowing about this are lies.

...Hastert is basically an accomplice to Foleys crime(s) now.

[ October 04, 2006, 12:44 AM: Message edited by: Liberal ]

Posts: 228 | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
They's a buncha Reps what's tired of being bully-whipped by this administration and its Congressional strongmen. Now that they not only don't need 'em but can't afford to keep 'em around...
Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Amen Liberal.

Of course AC blames the Dems. She is truly sick. Not as sick as Foley, but sick.

She is calling it gay-bashing. Like anybody cares what sex the child this old man was using his power to intimidate and molest was. Sick bitch.

KE

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If a Dem did anything to children (or even knew about this and did nothing) I would want his head on a stick. Prostitution is a different matter entirely.

This has nothing, or should have nothing, to do with party politics. Republicans aren't hurt by this other than the ones who knew and the sick bastard Foley.

KE

[ October 04, 2006, 10:24 AM: Message edited by: KnightEnder ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Interestingly, I suspect that the pages involved have more compassion or tolerance for Foley than all the power-addicts in Congress and the emdia have for Foley.

Foley is not well. As predators of under-age persons go, his actions are mild. Not good, not defensible, but mild. We have another incident in the news where a fella shot a buncha kids he was probably preparing to sexually engage at gunpoint.

Ah, the media. Ah, electioneering.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DaveS
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yes, the feeding frenzy is actually fascinating, far more incendiary than the deeds Foley did or didn't do. The Republican approach is a political variant of the Bart Simpson Defense Strategy. They counter-attack to make it seem like A) the Dems are the accusers, B) they're a disgusting immoral lot, and C) it's all an election ploy. Since the Goppers' only legitimate defense is to say it may not be as bad as news accounts make it seem, that counter-offensive has been delegated to the shadow party, meaning Fox, AC, Malkin, Drudge, Limbaugh, etc.

I suspect we'll hear the name Lewinsky at least as often from those people as the name Foley, and the page(s) who may have been victimized will be vilified (Drudge) whether or not they stick their heads out to say anything. But, the most important thing is to find a way to blame the Dems.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"But, the most important thing is to find a way to blame the Dems."

Which won't work in the slightest. The Reps rule the roost; Foley is a rep. Dems are completely out of the loop, and even Joe Sixpack Moron knows this. The boss can't blame the minions for the boss's decisions. What they have to find is a Dem boinking a page. Short of that, they're hoist on their own petard.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
winkey151
Member
Member # 2910

 - posted      Profile for winkey151   Email winkey151   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
All I know is Foley makes me ill and I am glad he resigned. No excuse is good enough to defend his actions.

As for who knew what and when... I think there should be a thorough investigation and anyone who held off reporting about this either to save their party embarrassment or to wait for better political timing should be punished.

Posts: 865 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LoverOfJoy
Member
Member # 157

 - posted      Profile for LoverOfJoy   Email LoverOfJoy   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It seems to me that part of the problem was that those that knew details were not the ones who felt they had power to do anything. When they get in touch with those who have more power, they declined to tell greater detail because of privacy concerns. So in their summing up the gist of it to those in authority it may come across as less bad than it would otherwise.

I'm not sure how to solve that, but it does seem like a real problem. Ideally, the ones with power need to press the issue to find out more details. If someone comes to you and says that there's been inappropriate emails from Foley to a page and you ask, "What do you mean, like sexually?" and the person responds, "No, no, no...but... overly friendly" and they refuse to let you see the email, what should you do? In a situation like that I can understand someone feeling like all they CAN do is to ask Foley to be more professional in his correspondence with pages, sent out a notice to pages to both be professional and report any unprofessional behavior they see, and just tell people in the know to keep a closer eye on Foley. In that sense I can see how someone may feel like they "took care of it" if they did those things with only that knowledge. I'm not sure I'd agree but I can understand the feelings of ...helplessness... with such a lack of knowledge. Do you start an all out investigation when someone says he was over friendly and says it wasn't sexual?

If you know what the specifics are but can't tell it then it is doubly important to make sure the person receiving information from you understands the severity of the situation. If they say they'll take care of it, it's important to follow up to find out if they realize the severity of the situation.

On the other hand, I think if someone shows enough concern about privacy, that alone should be evidence that it's at least approaching "a big deal" and that maybe more needs to be done. If someone says that something bad happened to my brother but they can't tell because they promised not to, that automatically makes me on more of an alert that it's a big deal.

So people definitely screwed up on both sides of it but again, I'm not sure how badly and what the consequences should be. If anyone really knew what was going on and said they'd take care of it but didn't, then I consider that a horrible thing and they should likely lose their job at LEAST if not more. It sure sounds like a lot of people kinda sorta knew, but not really. Maybe it sounds that way because they are trying to save their butts. But even if they did only vaguely know, IDEALLY they should have pressed to find out more and do more. Is it a criminal offense if they didn't? I'm not sure how severe that kind of negligence is.

As hard as it is for the victim, we can't prosecute someone if the victim won't even let people know the details of what happened. That's not to BLAME the victim. It's just to protect the potentially innocent. Maybe the boy didn't want to show anyone because in the email/IM he told his penis size or something like that. Maybe he tried to make the person he told promise not to show the email or tell the details contained in it to anyone else. Well, that puts the person he told in a bind. How can he do anything about it if he can't really tell anything about it? He's given a responsibility without having any power. Well, he has SOME power, but it is limited.

Posts: 3639 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Rep or Dem majority, the analysis would be the same: bad leadership.
Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Liberal
Member
Member # 2888

 - posted      Profile for Liberal   Email Liberal   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
LoJ, even if they didn't communicate all the details, which Boehner and the page program director said that they did, they did communicate how serious they thought it was and got a conscious "I will take care of this [awful crap]" out of Hastert. Clearly, according to all of them, he knew it was very bad.

He also knew even a year or more ago that the coming congressional elections looked bad for the GOP and that Foley's seat was one of a precious few "safe" seats.

If that doesn't make it obvious for you what the hell was going on, his initial lie about it while he was hoping it would die down before he admitted he was informed should clue you in.

[ October 04, 2006, 12:55 PM: Message edited by: Liberal ]

Posts: 228 | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LoverOfJoy
Member
Member # 157

 - posted      Profile for LoverOfJoy   Email LoverOfJoy   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
All I know is Foley makes me ill and I am glad he resigned. No excuse is good enough to defend his actions.

As for who knew what and when... I think there should be a thorough investigation and anyone who held off reporting about this either to save their party embarrassment or to wait for better political timing should be punished.

I agree completely. I am also curious about how this got public. Did they boy forward his email exchanges with Foley to ABC news? Someone from Alexander's office? Someone else? It seems that people were so vague because of concerns of privacy that few would actually have access to that email. To keep that privacy so tight for so long and then suddenly breach that privacy by going totally public to ABC seems odd (unless the emails in question were from a different page entirely. Are we sure it's the same page?) It sounds like at least one page and his parents didn't want the "matter pursued." Perhaps the one email exchange that was known about wasn't the same one that later went public as Hastert claims or maybe it just wasn't made clear to Hastert that there were two different emails and one was worse than the other.
Posts: 3639 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Liberal:
LoJ, even if they didn't communicate all the details, which Boehner and the page program director said that they did, they did communicate how serious they thought it was and got a conscious "I will take care of this [awful crap]" out of Hastert. Clearly, according to all of them, he knew it was very bad.

I'm confused about the details here. Nothing I've read says anything about the things you say in your first paragraph. Where are you getting this information? Did I misread something?

My understanding is they had an innapropriate email - that was overly friendly, but not sexual. Foley was warned to be more appropriate. This seems like the right thing to do in this circumstance, and to be honest, is probably exactly what I would have done - trust the messenger to tell me if there was something more to it then an "overly friendly" email. Trust that they would show me the email, when I asked for it, if it was a serious issue. Maybe that trust means that I wouldn't be elected by many of you - I have no idea. But I think it's reasonable.

Then, as far as I understand it, one year later the IM messages came out - and they came out via the media - not to the house, Hastert, etc. Again, maybe I'm wrong - please correct me, with sources if possible, but that's my understanding. And now people are pissed because Hastert didn't investigate the issue further one year ago? And everyone hates Foley for what amounts to asking an underage guy for nudie pictures?

Now, Foley needed to resign - he was on the road to breaking the law, and likely knew it. But, as others on this thread have mentioned, perspective would be nice. As far as I know, again based on what I've read, there was no innappriopriate contact, outside the IM messages. So, the next question is: if you ask for nude pictures of an underage person, but don't get them, has an actual crime occured?

I'm trying to understand why this is suddenly the hot topic of the day, and why people are calling for the head of the Speaker of the House. I just don't get it. It's a scandal. It sucks. I feel bad for the page, and little more than scorn for Foley. I think it's unfortunate that this wasn't handled in the beginning, but I have trouble seeing how that would have went down.

And honestly? I understand the feelings of the various people going "Hypocrisy!" I won't join the chorus - it's not helpful when discussing the issue at hand, but I do understand it.

Anyway, more information would be appreciated.

Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1