This is topic GOP for a Secure America? Not if you're a teenaged boy... (Rep Foley Scandal) in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.
The extent of what the GOP knew isn't...well, known yet. But the implications are damaging, as well they should be.
This isn't a matter of a single representative; it's (possibly) a systematic cover-up to maintain political power. It is emblematic of a system where morality takes a backseat to power. It is politicking at its very worst.
This is infuriating. The GOP needs to move quickly to remove the offenderS from their offices.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
The strangest part is that Foley sponsored or wrote some of the hardest laws against sexual predators and pedophiles in recent years. Wonder if that was just camoflage or staring at the darkness for so long you become the darkness.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:The strangest part is that Foley sponsored or wrote some of the hardest laws against sexual predators and pedophiles in recent years.
I disagree.
The strangest part is that people who hold themselves up as paragons of social conservatism (perhaps) failed to protect the children they're always going on about.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
One of the aspects of this that seems to be going unchallenged was this comment my Newt Gingrich:
quote: WALLACE: But during all those months, they left Foley in the House Republican leadership. They left him as the head of the congressional caucus dealing with exploited children. No second thoughts about that?
GINGRICH: Well, you can have second thoughts about it, but I think, had they overly aggressively reacted to the initial round, they would have also been accused of gay bashing. I mean, the original notes had no sexual innuendo, and the parents did not want any action taken.
WALLACE: Well, how would it have been gay bashing?
GINGRICH: Because it was a male-male relationship.
Can I assume that we all know the difference between homosexuality and child molesting at this point?
This really ticks me off.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Where is that interview from, kmboots?
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: The strangest part is that Foley sponsored or wrote some of the hardest laws against sexual predators and pedophiles in recent years. Wonder if that was just camoflage or staring at the darkness for so long you become the darkness.
I hope the full weight of every law that he passed comes to bear on him. There's already been way too much of double-standards in this case.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
As for the rest of the GOP, I think this is a case of who knew how much when. Frankly, if all they knew about were the "overly friendly" emails to the one page, the actions of the GOP leadership are somewhat reasonable and this should not be considered a cover-up. Keep in mind that even Foley himself admitted to and wasn't going to resign over those emails, and was considered likely to win reelection. However, on the other hand, if the GOP leadership knew about the other far more explicit messages that have now come out from other pages, then it is a pretty bad cover-up. Those are a smoking gun, I think, and would have demanded immediate action if any government official knew of them.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
S'allright; I was curious, not confrontational.
BQT: This isn't about Foley-- this is about the GOP as a whole losing their credentials. They (the GOP leadership) knew there was a problem, possibly a big one, and they let him stay on.
Gingrich's reasoning is laughable.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote: Gingrich's reasoning is laughable.
I just want to make sure we acknowledge that. Wallace didn't and somebody should.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: BQT: This isn't about Foley-- this is about the GOP as a whole losing their credentials. They (the GOP leadership) knew there was a problem, possibly a big one, and they let him stay on.
Right, and I also hope whatever laws they passed that would punish an official for knowing about such activities and failing to report or correct them also come fully to bear on anyone responsible. Hypocracy like this really really bugs me.
Posted by Mig (Member # 9284) on :
The early messages didn't seem offensive. It was weird that a US Rep, who has been widely known as being a homosexual, was texting a male page, but there was no overt sexuality in those early texts. All they had were overly friendly text messages and a promise from Foley to stop and avoid any appearance of impropriety. What could or should they have done based only on the early messages, which is all the leadership had access to.
What we do know is that others failed to bring the full danger of this perverts acts to the attention of the leadership.
This all happended about three years ago. Where have the kids parents been all this time? Why has it taken this long for the messages to make the light of day. Did someone hold on to these messages to release them when they would hurt the GOP the most. If they did, whoever held on to these messages is more morally culpable than the GOP leadership because they had more access to the whole facts.
What did the Democrat leadership know and when did they know it? The emails first came to light through the office of La. democrat Rep. Rodney Alexander, who sponsored the page. The kid first shared the exchanges Alexander, then they were brought to the Speaker's attention. It doesn't look like the democrats weren't so offended or concerned then either.
How about he kid's parents? The kid's parents are also culpable for letting this pervert stay in office for as long as he has and extending the amount of time he can be using his power to prey on pages. How do you get access to a teens text messages without the parents permission?
Were they keeping this coverup going until it's political damage could be maximized? Otherwise, why not make the raunchier text messages public earlier? It's sick for the Democrats to manipulate and use this kind of pervertion for political gain.
As Speaker Dennis Hastert asks in his letter to the AG asking for an investigation, to paraphrase: The communications appear to have existed for three years, there should be an investigation into the extent there are persons who knew or had possession of these messages but did not report them to the appropriate authorities. It is important to know who may have had the communications and why they were not given to prosecutors before now.
I also find it fifficult to take seriously the cries of outrage we're getting from the party of William Jefferson, Ted Kennedy, Patrick Kennedy, Bill Clinton, and so on. This is the leadership that stood behind serial woman abouser Clinton.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:How do you get access to a teens text messages without the parents permission?
I don't understand the question. If the question is, "How could this man have text messaged a teen without his parents' permission?" then I would respond, "Quite easily."
-pH
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mig: What we do know is that others failed to bring the full danger of this perverts acts to the attention of the leadership.
This all happended about three years ago. Where have the kids parents been all this time? Why has it taken this long for the messages to make the light of day. Did someone hold on to these messages to release them when they would hurt the GOP the most. If they did, whoever held on to these messages is more morally culpable than the GOP leadership because they had more access to the whole facts.
What did the Democrat leadership know and when did they know it? The emails first came to light through the office of La. democrat Rep. Rodney Alexander, who sponsored the page. The kid first shared the exchanges Alexander, then they were brought to the Speaker's attention. It doesn't look like the democrats weren't so offended or concerned then either.
Rodney Alexander switched parties to Republican in 2004--get your facts straight before you vent, Mig. And the early issue the GOP definitely knew about was emails, others from 2003 were IM, AFIAK, there weren't any text messages to cell phones. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Rodney_Alexander
quote: How about he kid's parents? The kid's parents are also culpable for letting this pervert stay in office for as long as he has and extending the amount of time he can be using his power to prey on pages. How do you get access to a teens text messages without the parents permission?
Were they keeping this coverup going until it's political damage could be maximized? Otherwise, why not make the raunchier text messages public earlier? It's sick for the Democrats to manipulate and use this kind of pervertion for political gain.
Mig, it's even sicker to give the House GOP leadership a pass before all the facts are in yet blame the parents and accuse them of some bizarre imaginary conspiracy to maximize political damage.
I suppose if your kid was involved you would go to the media forthwith, right?
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:What did the Democrat leadership know and when did they know it? The emails first came to light through the office of La. democrat Rep. Rodney Alexander, who sponsored the page. The kid first shared the exchanges Alexander, then they were brought to the Speaker's attention. It doesn't look like the democrats weren't so offended or concerned then either.
I had post here that said Alexander was a Republican according to YahooNews. Then I deleted it. After a bit of research, apparently he was a Dem and then switched over in 2004.
So when the emails came to light in late 2005, he was a member of the Republican party (which is really a moot point).
quote:Were they keeping this coverup going until it's political damage could be maximized? Otherwise, why not make the raunchier text messages public earlier? It's sick for the Democrats to manipulate and use this kind of pervertion for political gain.
I was under the impression that ABC asked for the IMs from AOL, who does keep records of all these things. If Alexander knew the extent of the communications, he should be in a lot of trouble. If Hastert did, so should he.
[edit] morbo, you and your fast typing.
--j_k
[ October 02, 2006, 02:33 PM: Message edited by: James Tiberius Kirk ]
Posted by Mig (Member # 9284) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH:
quote:How do you get access to a teens text messages without the parents permission?
I don't understand the question. If the question is, "How could this man have text messaged a teen without his parents' permission?" then I would respond, "Quite easily."
-pH
I think the point is clear, but let me try to make it clearer for you: Phone companies don't just release anyone text messaging transcripts, even if you ask nicely. How do you get a transcript of text messages b/w a minor and an adult (Foley) without the permission of the adult or the minor's parents? I'm safely assuming that the permission to access the phone records for the text messaging did not come from Foley. Three years ago the parents weren't interested in pursueing this. Someone who has known about this for a while, and whose political interests coinside with the democrats convinced the parents to do to this three years later. Why wait, unless its for political gain? that is reprehensible.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH:
quote:How do you get access to a teens text messages without the parents permission?
I don't understand the question. If the question is, "How could this man have text messaged a teen without his parents' permission?" then I would respond, "Quite easily."
-pH
Especially considering that Foley had a reputation as one of the few Congressman who actually got to know the pages he worked with.
[edit] And in light of the clarification directly above, this post is meaningless.
--j_k
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mig:
quote:Originally posted by pH:
quote:How do you get access to a teens text messages without the parents permission?
I don't understand the question. If the question is, "How could this man have text messaged a teen without his parents' permission?" then I would respond, "Quite easily."
-pH
I think the point is clear, but let me try to make it clearer for you: Phone companies don't just release anyone text messaging transcripts, even if you ask nicely. How do you get a transcript of text messages b/w a minor and an adult (Foley) without the permission of the adult or the minor's parents? I'm safely assuming that the permission to access the phone records for the text messaging did not come from Foley. Three years ago the parents weren't interested in pursueing this. Someone who has known about this for a while, and whose political interests coinside with the democrats convinced the parents to do to this three years later. Why wait, unless its for political gain? that is reprehensible.
I would think you'd be able to get some kind of warrant for this information, in which case, it wouldn't matter if the parents or Foley gave permission.
Edit: I say this because something very similar happened at my old school between a teacher and a 13-year-old girl.
-pH
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Where have the kids parents been all this time?
In the context of the original post on this subject--who cares? They don't make policy; I didn't elect them; I don't pay taxes to them; they have no socially recognizable or redeemable trust.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:Three years ago the parents weren't interested in pursueing this.
Different set of parents, it seems. The parents of the page emailed in May were reportedly "not interested" in following up on the story.
IIRC, the IM exhanges occured in 2003 with a different page, and there is no evidence that the parents knew about it.
--j_k
Posted by Mig (Member # 9284) on :
PH, I don't know what you "mean by some kind of warrant." There is no record of any law enforcment (criminal investigation)involvement in this case until the FBI was asked to investigate this past week. When there is a criminal investigation, as in the case at your old school, the police can get a warrant. But absent the parents and the minor being involved in law suit (no law suit here) and their being subpoenaed for the info (hasn't happened), or there being an active criminal investigation, and then a court order to the phone company (not happended either, and why would it?), there is only one way that the transcript could have been obtained: The parents cooperated in signing a release at the behest of someone working for the democrats or with their interests in mind.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
Or, someone at AOL found and released them.
Or, someone broke into his computer and found them. (Unlikely, but if we're throwing out possibilities then it has to come up.)
Or, the kid released them on his own.
But this:
quote:The parents cooperated in signing a release
does not logically lead to this:
quote:at the behest of someone working for the democrats or with their interests in mind.
The parents/AOL tech/investigators/hackers/snoops/whatever-you-choose may or may not have had their own political reasons for releasing the information, but the fact that it is bad for the Republicans does not necessarily mean that the Democrats were behind it.
--j_k
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
There was no lawsuit at my school. The FBI were involved. And no one knew the FBI were involved until a year after they'd begun their investigation.
-pH
Posted by lynn johnson (Member # 9620) on :
This is awful, no question, but I don't see Scott's point. What does it have to do with Republicans vs. Democrats? It is a side effect of putting people into power. Others have commented on the Dems covering up the same stuff.
"It is not that power corrupts. It is that power attracts corruptible people."
I don't recall who said that. But it is one of the best arguments ever for radically pruning back our government and limiting it to national defense and border integrity and very little else. You always get this kind of scandal from time to time because people in power want to keep it.
So, Scott, why the indignation at Republicans? Want to join the Libertarians? That's the logical alternative. Cut back on government and it will attract less abuse.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
That depends if the true problem is the abuse itself or the fact that the government is doing it. Cut back on the government, and the government will abuse less, but everyone else may be able to abuse more.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
It's not the only logical alternative. There are several others I can think of.
And maybe what Scott is doing is really subtle dis at the Dems. The Republicans are the bastions of morals and looking out for the children. The two have different levels of behavior expected of them. We're just glad when Democrats refrain from IMing pine trees about lewd and lascivious acts.
Oh, and Scott:
-Bok
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote: Rep. Tom Reynolds, R-New York, said during the weekend that he told Hastert about the initial complaint -- that Foley had been e-mailing a 16-year-old Louisiana boy who had served as a page, asking for a picture of the teen and asking what he wanted for his birthday.
Reynolds chairs the National Republican Congressional Committee, which is the election campaign arm for House Republicans.
Reynolds said that when Rep. Rodney Alexander, R-Louisiana, told him about the e-mails, he said the teen's parents didn't want the matter pursued. Alexander was the boy's sponsor.
Did they think they were attempting to prevent embarrassing the boy and his family?
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
Mig's post condensed and translated:
quote:The early messages didn't seem offensive. It was weird that a US Rep, who has been widely known as being a homosexual, was texting a male page, but there was no overt sexuality in those early texts. All they had were overly friendly text messages and a promise from Foley to stop and avoid any appearance of impropriety. What could or should they have done based only on the early messages, which is all the leadership had access to.
It's not our fault!! Don't blame the GOP!!
quote:What we do know is that others failed to bring the full danger of this perverts acts to the attention of the leadership.
It's someone else's fault.
quote:This all happended about three years ago. Where have the kids parents been all this time?
It's the parent's fault. Not ours!
quote:Why has it taken this long for the messages to make the light of day.Did someone hold on to these messages to release them when they would hurt the GOP the most.
Wait, not just not our fault. Someone held on to these messages till they'd hurt us. We're the victims!
quote:If they did, whoever held on to these messages is more morally culpable than the GOP leadership because they had more access to the whole facts.
Not our fault! We didn't know, we're the victims!
quote:What did the Democrat leadership know and when did they know it? The emails first came to light through the office of La. democrat Rep. Rodney Alexander, who sponsored the page. The kid first shared the exchanges Alexander, then they were brought to the Speaker's attention. It doesn't look like the democrats weren't so offended or concerned then either.
We're the victims of a democratic plot against us!
quote:How about he kid's parents? The kid's parents are also culpable for letting this pervert stay in office for as long as he has and extending the amount of time he can be using his power to prey on pages. How do you get access to a teens text messages without the parents permission?
Were they keeping this coverup going until it's political damage could be maximized? Otherwise, why not make the raunchier text messages public earlier? It's sick for the Democrats to manipulate and use this kind of pervertion for political gain.
The victims of a conspiracy between the democrats and the parents to hurt us most at election time!
quote:As Speaker Dennis Hastert asks in his letter to the AG asking for an investigation, to paraphrase: The communications appear to have existed for three years, there should be an investigation into the extent there are persons who knew or had possession of these messages but did not report them to the appropriate authorities. It is important to know who may have had the communications and why they were not given to prosecutors before now.
See look! More evidense of a conspiracy!
quote:I also find it fifficult to take seriously the cries of outrage we're getting from the party of William Jefferson, Ted Kennedy, Patrick Kennedy, Bill Clinton, and so on. This is the leadership that stood behind serial woman abouser Clinton.
Evil, evil democrats. The lot of them! Down with the democrats, blame them for this not us! We're the victims of an evil democratic conspiracy!
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:So, Scott, why the indignation at Republicans?
I feel betrayed, conned and cheated. To that extent, you're correct. This cover-up isn't about money, or embarassed politicos covering up mistresses; this is an attempt by the GOP leaders to grasp power at the expense of justice.
quote:Want to join the Libertarians? That's the logical alternative. Cut back on government and it will attract less abuse.
Good heavens, no. I'm as fiscally liberal a person as you'll ever find. I show up at a Libertarian function, they'll burn me at the stake.
Shoot-- considering how miserly Libertarians are, they'd probably burn me FOR steak.
[ October 02, 2006, 03:15 PM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
If that is true, then I don't see it as a cover up. The emails were enough to raise a warning flag...and make sure he cut off contact, but were not enough that they should have done anything else. Particularly if they parents thought the issue should be dropped.
Of course, if anyone knew about the IMs and covered them up, then heads should roll.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:On Friday afternoon, a strategist for Rep. Mark Foley tried to cut a deal with ABC's Brian Ross.
The correspondent, who had dozens of instant messages that Foley sent to teenage House pages, had asked to interview the Florida Republican. Foley's former chief of staff said the congressman was quitting and that Ross could have that information exclusively if he agreed not to publish the raw, sexually explicit messages.
"I said we're not making any deals," Ross recalls. He says the Internet made the story possible, because on Thursday he posted a story on his ABC Web page, the Blotter, after obtaining one milder e-mail that Foley had sent a 16-year-old page, asking for a picture. Within two hours, former pages had e-mailed Ross and provided the salacious messages. The only question then, says Ross, was "whether this could be authenticated."
So the transcripts of the IM conversations were provided by former pages, after Ross posted about the emails (and, notably, after Foley tried to prevent Ross from doing so).
--j_k
Posted by Brian J. Hill (Member # 5346) on :
If the allegations that House Leadership knew about Foley's IM relationship with the page and sought to cover it up for political purposes are true, then that is indeed reprehensible and inexcusable behavior. However, since absolutely no evidence has yet been provided to substantiate that allegation, this smells of political grandstanding. I don't blame the Dems, though. In my heart of hearts, I know that the Republicans would try their damndest to make political hay if the situation was reversed.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
There's a few things that really tweak my meter here. First, there's the discrepancy between the stories. First, Alexander said that he told Hastert about the emails. Then Hastert denied this. But now he says that he saw the emails but not the IMs.
Second, when informed about this, instead of bringing it up before the Ethics committee, they went to the Republican elections guy,
Third, according to a blog post from Sept. 5 of this year that Morbo pointed out in the other thread we had on this:
quote: The Real Problem With Foley (0 / 0)
It's not that he's gay. It's that he constantly hits on underage interns on The Hill. You guys talk about an "open secret" well Foley's eye for the young boys in the White House and around the Capitol is what has the Republican bosses scared to death. It's just wrong that this guy can hit on young boys and still be in the leadership.
by WHInternNow on Tue Sep 05, 2006 at 05:48:09 PM PDT
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mig: I also find it fifficult to take seriously the cries of outrage we're getting from the party of William Jefferson, Ted Kennedy, Patrick Kennedy, Bill Clinton, and so on. This is the leadership that stood behind serial woman abouser Clinton.
quote:Originally posted by Brian J. Hill: However, since absolutely no evidence has yet been provided to substantiate that allegation, this smells of political grandstanding. I don't blame the Dems, though. In my heart of hearts, I know that the Republicans would try their damndest to make political hay if the situation was reversed.
pssst . . . Scott's not a democrat.
Posted by Joldo (Member # 6991) on :
Okay, I don't get it. The only messages I've heard about, while creepy, are hardly explicit. Is the news just censoring the more obviously advancing messages or is this just a case of Foley being pretty schmeepy?
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
Molehill to mountainmaking. It's a dumb old horny guy with bad decisionmaking skills that was warned to stop making bad decisions. Unbeknownst to the leadership that warned he did not. Now, elections are close and the Democrats are going to take this for WAAAAY more than it's worth. End of story.
I hate the two party system.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
quote:Democrats are going to take this for WAAAAY more than it's worth
Thing is, all you have to do is look at history to see that the Republicans are experts at milking things such as this (and things that are far more harmless) for all they are worth. So it's only fair really...
...plus there's that whole irony thing. You know, him being the one to really push the laws against exactly what he was doing. And the GOP holding itself up as the party of virtue and morality.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Examine the instant messages. The emails are innocuous; the IMs are not.
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
Fairness or irony don't make this any bigger a deal than it is. Pure, stupid politics that's going to take in poor, stupid people.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
Some of you people are making me cringe. A grown adult with authority and no ties to the child's family was, in the emails, asking the child for pictures of himself. That ALONE is enough to warrant an investigation of any average adult. This is what you people who are saying it was no big deal are missing.
If a teacher would have sent their student the initial emails that were released, that teacher would have at least put on administrative leave pending investigation. If an employee at a business did such a thing to an underage intern and was discovered, that employee would at least receive an administrative warning and the parents notified. In almost every situation I can think of where a person in authority and an underaged intern are concerned, I can't think of one instance where there would have been at least mild outrage. In some environments, personal communications like that could easily be the beginning of a sexual misconduct nightmare for HR. Yet in this case, there was no outrage until the instant messages discussing mastubation surfaced. And even now, the GOP are more interested in covering their own asses than they are at drilling down this sexual predator for his behavior.
Some of you should really be ashamed of yourselves.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:A grown adult with authority and no ties to the child's family was, in the emails, asking the child for pictures of himself. That ALONE is enough to warrant an investigation of any average adult.
Why? The "child" was of legal age, and it's not even remotely uncommon for places of employment to retain pictures of their past interns for a variety of reasons, both personal and professional. It's actually sad that this behavior might appear suspicious to people.
Unfortunately, the REST of his communications weren't nearly so innocent.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:The "child" was of legal age and it's not even remotely uncommon for places of employment to retain pictures of their past interns for a variety of reasons, both personal and professional..
First, All the reports I've read indicate that the intern was 16, which is not "legal age" in this country.
and Second, it is not the request for the picture which is in and of itself suspicious, it is the context in which the request was made. While it is not at all uncommon for employers to retain pictures of their employees, such requests are generally made in an official context and not in a personal e-mail that includes a variety of personal questions.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:Why? The "child" was of legal age, and it's not even remotely uncommon for places of employment to retain pictures of their past interns for a variety of reasons, both personal and professional. It's actually sad that this behavior might appear suspicious to people.
I can't believe that legal age of consent is being used as a defense of this behavior. You may as well be admitting that the original communications were at least questionable in nature to begin with. Otherwise, why bring up consent? If the person is too young to vote, they are a minor despite what the local age of consent happens to be. An person in a position of authority sending such communications to a minor is the first flag, that the minors were pages to other representatives is the second flag.
Requesting a picture for a team bulletin board or a christmas card list is one thing, asking for a picture and what to get them for their birthday after they no longer work there is harrassment. Don't forget that each of those instances, the email and instant messages, happened after the child was no longer a page.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:All the reports I've read indicate that the intern was 16, which is not "legal age" in this country.
Actually, 16 is indeed the legal age of consent in Washington, D.C. Ironically, it's possible that the only law Foley may have broken is a law he helped write, which makes it illegal to discuss sex with minors online -- regardless of the local age of consent -- in all 50 states.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Also, many state/local laws raise the age of consent when there are certain power relationships. Plus congressional rules are quite clear on the subject.
I've heard of some non-innocuous emails floating around, I'll see if I can find them. If the only things known about were the more innocuous emails, people who knew in advance have a slight chance of getting off the hook depending on if that was all they heard. Everyone in a position of responsibility who was notified of a possible problem and didn't take the appropriate steps to investigate (which would have included, I don't know, interviewing some pages) should still resign.
[ October 02, 2006, 10:00 PM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by foundling (Member # 6348) on :
I read some of those IMs, and I really wish I hadn't. I'd like to be able to scrub my brain of the knowledge that I now have about how this man thinks. And the fact that they are published online, where anyone can read them and do what they will with them, makes me horribly sad. One of the worst things that I took away from reading them though, was the way that the kid reacted to what was said to him. You get this sense of "Gee Whiz... this powerful guy is saying these things to ME...". There is a distinct sense of naiveté on the boys part, and a distinct sense of POWER play on the grown mans part. It is disfunctional, sad, and truly disturbing.
And it infuriates me that "people", and by that I mean every single person, be they media or not who has done this, is taking something so freaking WRONG and demeaning it by making it nothing more than a political shit slinging fest. That is complete and utter bullshit. A child was taken advantage of, adults contributed to that wrong, and absolutely nothing else has any bearing on the situation. The fact that it was a Republican who did it and a Democrat who pointed it out really shouldnt matter. It doesnt make all Republicans pedophiles, and it doesnt make all Democrats Angels Of Justice. Whoever was involved in allowing this to happen should have their head handed to them on a platter.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I agree with foundling about the content of the IMs-- I wish I hadn't read the one or two posted in the news. They're disgusting.
As for why *I'm* making this political, it's what I outlined above. Previous to this administration, I trusted the GOP to do what was morally right, and to be, if not above politicking, at least better than the Dems. (Because the Dems social agenda is, IMHO, woefully misguided) This situation has removed that...I hate to put in these terms...FAITH.
I thought I couldn't BE more cynical about politicians. I was wrong. It sucks to be wrong.
quote:The fact that it was a Republican who did it and a Democrat who pointed it out really shouldnt matter.
It was a Republican who did it, and a Republican who reported it to the elections guy. The Dems didn't know until most of the rest of us did.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Previous to this administration, I trusted the GOP to do what was morally right, and to be, if not above politicking, at least better than the Dems.
Aside from this event, we are talking about politicans who have started wars on false pretenses, attempted to hide failures on a grand scale in Iraq, exposed a CIA agent's cover and then attempted to hide the fact that they did, repeatedly avoided holding Republican officials accountable for possible ethical breaches, intertwined themselves intimiately with Jack Abramoff's shady dealings, used unprecidented redistricting in Texas to get more seats in the House, attempted to hide the abuse of prisoners in Iraq and play it off as an isolated incident perpetrated by misguided ground soldiers, attempted to legally circumvent the Geneva convention so we can get away with more abusing of prisoners, hid privacy-threatening CIA programs that it suspected Americans would not approve of, hid the existence of CIA prisons in foreign countries where they could presumably get away with doing things they couldn't get away with in America, used the emotions of 9/11 to a political advantage, used patriotism as a justification to quell dissent of their policies, and so on. It is a seemingly endless list, and it amounts to a very distinct philosophy of "The ends justifies the means". Or, in other words, it is okay to do whatever it takes to advance their political agenda. It is an effective strategy in the short run, but in the long run the things they have swept under the rug eventually come back to bite them.
What I don't understand is how people can say they didn't know the current Republican leadership operated in this manner when they last voted for them...
Posted by Brian J. Hill (Member # 5346) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:Previous to this administration, I trusted the GOP to do what was morally right, and to be, if not above politicking, at least better than the Dems.
Aside from this event, we are talking about politicans who have started wars on false pretenses, attempted to hide failures on a grand scale in Iraq, exposed a CIA agent's cover and then attempted to hide the fact that they did, repeatedly avoided holding Republican officials accountable for possible ethical breaches, intertwined themselves intimiately with Jack Abramoff's shady dealings, used unprecidented redistricting in Texas to get more seats in the House, attempted to hide the abuse of prisoners in Iraq and play it off as an isolated incident perpetrated by misguided ground soldiers, attempted to legally circumvent the Geneva convention so we can get away with more abusing of prisoners, hid privacy-threatening CIA programs that it suspected Americans would not approve of, hid the existence of CIA prisons in foreign countries where they could presumably get away with doing things they couldn't get away with in America, used the emotions of 9/11 to a political advantage, used patriotism as a justification to quell dissent of their policies, and so on. It is a seemingly endless list, and it amounts to a very distinct philosophy of "The ends justifies the means". Or, in other words, it is okay to do whatever it takes to advance their political agenda. It is an effective strategy in the short run, but in the long run the things they have swept under the rug eventually come back to bite them.
Wow, that's way too long of a list of unsubstantiated allegations for me to tackle. I don't have all day, folks!
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: This situation has removed that...I hate to put in these terms...FAITH.
*blanches* *faints*
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
'Removed' is a rather sudden and strong word. After sleeping on it, I've decided that 'eroded' is more succinct and correct in my case.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: The strangest part is that Foley sponsored or wrote some of the hardest laws against sexual predators and pedophiles in recent years. Wonder if that was just camoflage or staring at the darkness for so long you become the darkness.
I know people who are addicted to pornography that were they put on a panel to fight against it would do alot more then many who are not addicted to it. They hate the fact they are addicted to it, they just don't know how to escape.
Not saying Foley is this way, I cannot say either way. But I can see somebody who engages in this behavior, hating the fact that they do, and much to fight against it.
I think Kevin Bacon was in a movie where he is a pedophile and struggles against it.
^^ there it is. I want to see it, quite a bit actually. Not many movies deal with the theme of fighting against your inner demons, especially today where so much of what we do is justified and called GOOD because society tells us not to govern our feelings, but to embrace them.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:exposed a CIA agent's cover and then attempted to hide the fact that they did
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Fox News mistakenly reported Foley as a Democrat when reporting the story (for at least part of the time) since it first broke.
I always knew Republicans were good at changing the scope of an argument, but this takes the cake.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
The AP also called Foley a Dem in a story, then corrected it.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Hannity, of Hannity and Combs also tried to deflect the story by bringing up a Democratic sex scandal with a 18 year old page...that took place in 1983.
The handling of this scandal by the Republican leadership is surprising (maybe I'm more surprised by the fact that I'm surprised). They would've scored more points by coming clean as soon as they knew and followed through by tarring Foley and hanging him out to dry. Instead they have to give up a couple more morality points to the Democrats, and they've probably just handed his seat over to the Dems, whereas releasing the story earlier would have gotten his name off the ticket. Now, for the man chosen to replace him, he has to convince voters to put a checkmark next to Foley's name on the ballot, which can't be removed. I'd have a hard time stomaching that, regardless of who I knew the real vote was going to.
What pisses me off on top of this whole debacle, is that even with one more bullet in their belt, the Dems probably still won't be able to mount a good defense. This is the best chance they've had to retake Congress since it was lost, and despite how evenly divided the Congress is, and despite Bush's probable veto of any Democratic pushed legislation, a change in power WILL change the tone of the nation. How much depends entirely on how smart the Dems play it.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Sean Hannity has also repeatedly tried to claim, without evidence, that the timing of the Foley scandal was all a Democratic plot. Despite the fact that it's been simmering for at least 10 months, if not years.
Although stopsexpredators.blogspot.com seems to have played a key role in breaking the story-- I hope some Democratic activist isn't behind that blog.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Fox News mistakenly reported Foley as a Democrat when reporting the story (for at least part of the time) since it first broke.
Yeah, there have been at least three separate instances of it. The first could have been a typo -- it was just the letter "D." The second time it was "Dems."
At least the AP corrected their (print) story. I haven't found anything about Fox issuing retractions or corrections on this. My default position was to assume that it was an honest mistake, but the repetition makes me question that assumption.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I see no joy in a Dem. victory.
If Saruman overthrows Sauron, does that mean pleasant days for Aragorn?
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
So you're admitting that the Dems are the lesser of two evils?? Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Heh.
No.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: Can I assume that we all know the difference between homosexuality and child molesting at this point?
I think you might be misinterperting what Gingrich was saying. I believe his point is that Republicans are handled in a much different way then Democrats are in these situations. ABC story "In 1983, two lawmakers were censured by the House of Representatives for having sexual relationships with teenage pages. Rep. Dan Crane, R-Ill., admitted to sexual relations with a 17-year-old female page, while Rep. Gerry Studds, D-Mass., admitted to sexual relations with a 17-year-old male page. The ways each lawmaker handled the scandal — and the consequences they faced afterward — were very different. Crane apologized for his actions, saying, "I'm human" and "I only hope my wife and children will forgive me." He was subsequently voted out of office in 1984. Studds, who was openly gay, said the relationship was consensual and charged that the investigation by the House Ethics Committee raised fundamental questions of privacy. He won re-election the following year — in a more liberal district than Crane's — and served in Congress until his retirement in 1996."
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Scott, when you put your faith in politicians, you will *always* be disappointed. Those who run the government only get into power because they crave, desire and need it. They will do anything to keep it. Make any deal, sell out any ideal so long as they stay in power. The behavior of the Republicans since they got into power (and the democrats for the previous 50 years) is absolute proof of this.
I think you should re-think your position as an Authoritarian. Look at the people you are giving the authority to.
Pix
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I think you should re-think your position as an Authoritarian. Look at the people you are giving the authority to.
The problem isn't my position or politics. The problem is that no one seems capable of living up to them...
I'm not changing, and I won't stand for this type of behavior in politicians.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Then until you are an uncorruptable dictator, you will continue to elect those who do more harm than good.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
I think what Foley did was repellant, and he deserves to go down for it. I don't know that I'd tar the entire GOP for it. For Abramoff, or Enron, maybe, but not for this.
But naive as it may be, I'd kind of like to see the Democrats win on issues, not a self-destructive cycle of scandals. Stagnant wages, a spiral into civil war in Iraq, stonewalling any movement toward emissions reduction or energy independence; there's plenty there without having to dance the sex, drugs, and money fandango.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I don't know, I'd categorize soliciting sex from minors in the workplace a pretty darn serious issue, on par with the first set you listed, Sterling.
I'd say that the GOP definitely deserves to be tarred with this. That's the business of politics, after all. Foley was a representative of the party, one who aided it in the past. If he were just some nameless flunky aide somewhere, it'd be one thing. But he's way up at the top. Politics is about reputation, people, compromise, ambition, etc.
These are not things that are decided solely on what the entire organization, as a whole, does. And they shouldn't be, either. In any case, I feel that however an individual might think about the GOP's stand on specific moral issues such as family values, reproductive rights, social justice, economics, etc., this kind of thing should amply demonstrate that the GOP is not as a whole a more 'moral' party than the Democrats.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: I'd say that the GOP definitely deserves to be tarred with this. That's the business of politics, after all.
quote: These are not things that are decided solely on what the entire organization, as a whole, does. And they shouldn't be, either.
If I am interperting your comments correctly...because the GOP stands for things, whenever any member of the GOP commits a crime the whole party is guilty of the crime? As I posted earlier, if this had been a Democrat the coverage would be far far different.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
I think there were actually three distinct episodes on FOX of misappellation ("D" or "Dems" rather than Republican).
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Hastert is "taking responsibility" for the Foley thing according to NPR. But he refuses to step down.
Hmm...responsibility without consequences...where have I heard that before? I seem to recall it being a problem of some kind.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:If I am interperting your comments correctly...because the GOP stands for things, whenever any member of the GOP commits a crime the whole party is guilty of the crime? As I posted earlier, if this had been a Democrat the coverage would be far far different.
DarkKnight,
Yes, because I said 'guilty'. I said 'tarred'. If I run a club which purports to be better than other clubs when it comes to moral values, and then one of my club members flagrantly violate a whole mess of morals that they were put in place to protect, my club gets a stained reputation. You claim membership-especially leadership-you're a frellin' representative of that club.
End of freaking story. I think it's hysterical that you're looking to a 20+year scandal to find some justification for your party in this. There is none. They get a seriously stained reputation for this, man. For their judgement if nothing else, putting a man like Foley in the position he held in the Congress.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: I think there were actually three distinct episodes on FOX of misappellation ("D" or "Dems" rather than Republican).
Yeah, and then when they re-aired the O'Reilly Factor later, rather than fixing the errors they simply removed the party affiliation entirely. As far as I'm aware they didn't acknowledge the mistake or issue a retraction/correction.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Darknight, first off, I'm not sure what you mean by "dealt with". Both Studds and Crane were reprimanded by Congress, both ran for re-election. Studds won, Crane lost. Probably he wasn't as skilled a politician as Studds. Certainly other Republicans have won re-election while under clouds of scandal.
Also, there are several facts left out or not highlighted in the short ABC story, DarkKnight.
1) Foley was Deputy Whip for the Republicans, making him the 4th highest-ranking House Republican, as well as being co-chair of the Caucus for Missing and Exploited Children.
While both Studds and Crane had their affairs in their first terms.
2)Studds' speech admitting the affair included this:
quote: Last week, in an extraordinary speech on the House floor, he confirmed unapologetically what had long been rumored—that he was a homosexual—and granted that he had made "a very serious error in judgment" in sleeping with the page.
Studds, who is unmarried, said only that he was wrong to have had sex with a congressional subordinate, no matter what the page's age or sex.
He may not have apologized, but he did admit he screwed up.
[ October 06, 2006, 09:53 AM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I would actually have bolded your last clause in (1) there, Morbo. I was a couple of clips on YouTube of Foley from a couple of years ago, speaking in his capacity as co-chair. He goes on about the usual sort of "think of the children" stuff, but of course now he just comes off looking like an utter hypocrite.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The problem isn't my position or politics. The problem is that no one seems capable of living up to them...
I submit that realism is an essential component of politics. In an ideal world, we'll all live in a communistic anarchy where everyone was nice to each other and shared everything.
It's precisely because not everyone lives up to -- or shares -- the same ideals that we HAVE laws: to identify ways to prevent these conflicts from causing harm.
If your ideals are so lofty that no one can live up to them, and your favorite political mechanism is such that, if people do not live up to your ideals, they can do great harm, your favorite mechanism is -- Q.E.D. -- harmful.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: I think you might be misinterperting what Gingrich was saying. I believe his point is that Republicans are handled in a much different way then Democrats are in these situations.
Hmmm, like when Rep. Don Sherwood (R-PA) actually has the chutzpah to run ads apologizing for an affair but denying "repeatedly choking" his mistress, should the voters accept his apology or vote him out? I'm confused here.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote: For Abramoff, or Enron, maybe, but not for this.
Why the hell would you blame the GOP for Enron?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I hate the power disparity. I hate that worldly power gives these people what they think is their right to treat the powerless among them like a dessert cart.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I have no idea what Q.E.D stands for, Tom.
And the idealism I'm shooting for in this case is for politicians to obey the ethics they've already agreed to obey-- you know, uphold the laws, etc.
Is that REALLY too much to expect from politicians?
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Scott: Of course it is! They write the laws so they'll be exempt from them! They are above the laws!
And there's nothing easier than making up crap that other people have to live by and you don't. Heck, it's fun too!
Pix
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I'm not quite ready to believe that, Pixiest.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Ah, but Scott, You're just one of the little people. A commoner. They're IMPORTANT. They're in GOVERNMENT. Why should they have to live by the same rules as you?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Scott,
Great letter. I am sure that, if you were to become a dictator, you would be one of the few who was incorruptible.
And it isn't too much to ask. All we have to do is pay attention and demand it. Being a citizen is a lot of work.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I have no idea what Q.E.D stands for, Tom.
"Quod erat demonstrandum" -- roughly, "and so it has been demonstrated." It's used at the end of a mathematical proof as a way of saying "I have proven what I set out to prove."
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I don't know, I'd categorize soliciting sex from minors in the workplace a pretty darn serious issue, on par with the first set you listed, Sterling.
I don't disagree on the seriousness of the crime. But unlike, say, the matter of Iraq, I don't feel there's a likelihood of a attitude of perceived acceptance of teenage solicitation becoming the norm on Capitol Hill. It may be that, in the name of preserving a popular incumbent Congressman, members of the GOP failed to act on evidence of wrongdoing, and that is certainly serious. But I'd like to see more of how things pan out before I rush to judge that.
quote:Why the hell would you blame the GOP for Enron?
Google "Enron deregulation" or "Enron political contributions."
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Sterling, please be more specific. The first link simply says that Enron donated to Republicans in an attempt to get out of trouble. So far, only Fastow has gotten any kind of break in the "trouble.
The second one makes some more specific allegations about the Gramms that date back to 1992, allegations that involve an executive branch post held by Gramm's wife.
The earnings for Enron were restated for 5 years in 2001 - more than 80% of that time for restated earnings was under the Clinton administration, which had regulatory control for 8 years. (Note: I'm not blaming Clinton here, either.)
Enron was a case of massive corporate fraud by private industry. It was prosecuted by the Bush administration. Nothing the Bush administration did contributed to this fraud.
All you've published is a lot of innuendo - Enron did something bad, Enron donated to the Republicans, therefore it's the Republicans fault.
Since only two Republicans are implicated in wrongdoing in either report, I'm interested to see how you arrived at the conclusion.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I think Foleys admission that he himself was molested as a younger man, plays towards my thougth that perhaps he hates that part of himself but he can't just free himself from it.
I think he deserves our sympathy and should be given help, not simply fired and thrown into a corner the rest of his days.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think his admission that he was molested, along with the alcohol thing, is a desperate attempt to change the label from "power-abusing pervert" to "victim and alcoholic."
I think he should be given help. I also think he should have the power he has been abusing taken away from him.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
I agree completely, Kat.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I hate the power disparity. I hate that worldly power gives these people what they think is their right to treat the powerless among them like a dessert cart.
Yes.
---
Edited to add:
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I think his admission that he was molested, along with the alcohol thing, is a desperate attempt to change the label from "power-abusing pervert" to "victim and alcoholic."
I think he should be given help. I also think he should have the power he has been abusing taken away from him.
Yes.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I think his admission that he was molested, along with the alcohol thing, is a desperate attempt to change the label from "power-abusing pervert" to "victim and alcoholic."
I think he should be given help. I also think he should have the power he has been abusing taken away from him.
I agree with how you think he should be treated, I wouldnt say it MUST be a DESPERATE measure. For all you know he could be greatly relieved that the lid on this part of his life has finally exploded off. I know that when my own personal demons were discovered by my parents I was half upset with myself for having sunken that low, half so happy that I couldnt hide it from them anymore.
I didnt recover immedietly, but that was a crucial first step, I'm glad I didnt spend as long as Foley has apparently dealing with it (or not dealing with it and just hiding it as may have been his case).
edit: "It" being my own personal demons, not pedophilia.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: All you've published is a lot of innuendo - Enron did something bad, Enron donated to the Republicans, therefore it's the Republicans fault.
Really? That Bush overturned Clinton's order to stop energy speculation in California?
Or that Republicans were the major sponsors and supporters of the legislation that allowed the speculation to occur? Governor John Rowland of Connecticut, Marc Racticot of Montana, Pete Wilson of California, among others? That they were heavily lobbied and financially bolstered by the interests that most benefitted from them doing so? By PACs and lobbying groups with strong GOP ties, such as Citizens For a Sound Economy?
None of that is innuendo. It's all quite verifiable.
I don't expect to convince you. And I've given the question as written as much time and more respect than it deserves.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)