View Full Version : Congressman Mark Foley resigned
Shadow205
09-29-2006, 05:17 PM
Foley Resigns Over Sexually Explicit Messages to Minors
September 29, 2006 3:02 PM
Congressman Mark Foley (R-FL) resigned from Congress today, hours after ABC News questioned him about sexually explicit internet messages with current and former congressional pages under the age of 18.
A spokesman for Foley, the chairman of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children, said the congressman submitted his resignation in a letter late this afternoon to Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert.
Hours earlier, ABC News had read excerpts of instant messages provided by former male pages who said the congressman, under the AOL Instant Messenger screen name Maf54, made repeated references to sexual organs and acts.
In a statement, Foley said, "I am deeply sorry and I apologize for letting down my family and the people of Florida I have had the privilege to represent." (http://abcnews.go.com/images/US/Foley_Statement.pdf)
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/09/foley_resigns_o.html
Masterj
09-29-2006, 05:29 PM
I feel badly for the young men and the congressman's family.
close_enough
09-29-2006, 05:30 PM
yikes!!!
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/09/sixteenyearold_.html
hoppyfrog
09-29-2006, 07:30 PM
According to this article
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/29/congressman.e.mails/index.html
"According to GOP sources, Foley is concerned there may be other potential politically damaging e-mails or information out there and has concluded it's best not to run again for office."
"Concerned there may be"??? Wouldn't he KNOW if those are out there or not?
Must be politi-speak for "I know there are more out there."
Details
09-29-2006, 07:33 PM
Poli speak for, "I did it, and I've done it a lot, and now that I'm found out for the hypocritic criminal I am, I'd better duck and hide!"
SadieMae
09-29-2006, 08:08 PM
CNN showed some excerpts from instant chat messages. Asking what the teen was wearing and how he'd like to take his clothes off him. Ugh!!! Sick stuff!!!! :eek:
hockeymom
09-29-2006, 08:13 PM
What a pig. Can he go to jail? I hope so. Then he can talk dirty with all the boys!! And people wonder why we can't get laws passed in this country to protect our kids. Look who's running the show!! I can't wait to hear what O'Reilly has to say about this.
Marthatex
09-29-2006, 08:21 PM
O'Reilly will be disgusted, I would imagine.
This guy was on the committee to protect kids from the internet? Mmm, amazing.
concernedperson
09-29-2006, 08:27 PM
This just floors me. WTF? He is chairman of missing and exploited children? I don't care if he is gay but kids? What a great coverup for a politician. I cannot believe the audacity of this.
Details
09-29-2006, 08:31 PM
Perverts will get in wherever they can - it's sad and shocking and upsetting to find out about them, but there they are. We found this one, and he's out - that's good. All I'd be concerned about now is if he either used his power to make any laws or other such easy to get around for his fellow perverts - or if anyone knew and covered up for him - I think those types are almost worse than the perverts themselves - at least in some ways the pervert is just sick and has that excuse, the person covering up doesn't.
concernedperson
09-29-2006, 08:51 PM
Perverts will get in wherever they can - it's sad and shocking and upsetting to find out about them, but there they are. We found this one, and he's out - that's good. All I'd be concerned about now is if he either used his power to make any laws or other such easy to get around for his fellow perverts - or if anyone knew and covered up for him - I think those types are almost worse than the perverts themselves - at least in some ways the pervert is just sick and has that excuse, the person covering up doesn't.
It explains a lot to me.We need to take a harder look at the laws in every state and the missing children. It seems that we almost have to self police our own states.For sure our children but on a local basis LE hands are tied by laws.
I had a cop explain to me last week to have the residents report a vagrant because after the damage is done the paperwork slows down the prosecution. I have been thinking about this. Now I see what he means. It is easier to pick up a vagrant on a misdemeanor charge and get them out of the way than prove what they have done. The same thing here...this perp just dropped out of politics to save himself from prosecution. I hope it doesn't work and paperwork isn't a problem for someone with a heartfelt desire to get rid of perverts. Also, a thought to coverups. This is reminding me of the people who helped Joseph Duncan. Thus ending in one of the worst
crimes I have seen.
I am believing that people should be prosecuted for turning their heads when knowledge could either prevent a crime or could bring someone to justice. Responsibilty is so sorely lacking right down.
j2mirish
09-29-2006, 09:05 PM
This just floors me. WTF? He is chairman of missing and exploited children? I don't care if he is gay but kids? What a great coverup for a politician. I cannot believe the audacity of this.
really makes you want to jump up and wave the flag....doesnt it? :behindbar :behindbar
SadieMae
09-29-2006, 09:06 PM
Hmmmm, shouldn't someone have known about him earlier? I found this blog site, but I can't figure out how to get to the Monday page with interviews. Apparently others were aware of his behavior.
http://www.blogactive.com/2005/03/i-have-seen-enemy.html
Shadow205
09-29-2006, 09:20 PM
WARNING!
From ABC News: 2003 Internet exchange between Congressman Foley and a former congressional page, according to the young man.
This is a link chat and does contain some sexual content.
Maf54 is Congressman Folly's screen name. I certainly see why he resigned. I'm sure that this only only the tip of the iceburg.
http://abcnews.go.com/images/WNT/02-02-03b.pdf
sorry, I couldn't make the font any smaller.
SadieMae
09-29-2006, 09:36 PM
OMG!!!:eek:
IdahoMom
09-29-2006, 09:40 PM
I am very happy he resigned. Now he needs to be prosecuted.
englishleigh
09-29-2006, 09:44 PM
OMG, that is NASTY!! :eek::eek:
Shadow205
09-29-2006, 09:45 PM
OMG!!!:eek:
See why I posted the WARNING ? http://www.websleuths.com/forums/images/smilies/blushing.gif (http://www.websleuths.com/forums/misc.php?do=getsmilies&wysiwyg=1&forumid=80#)
Shadow205
09-29-2006, 09:46 PM
I am very happy he resigned. Now he needs to be prosecuted.
I agree IdahoMim and think that it is a very good possibility that he will be.
capps
09-29-2006, 10:13 PM
For heaven sakes! Can we trust anybody these days? Seems to me,there needs to be some major "house cleaning" into our elected officials. We're paying the salary of too many "bad boys" lately.
reportertype
09-29-2006, 10:27 PM
Foley has been highly vocal about "perverts" and the need to identify them and stop them. He has a history of being very hard-line about stuff like this. Another reason to disbelieve everything that comes out of a politican's mouth.
Curious J
09-29-2006, 10:29 PM
I suppose someone needs to mention Rep. Barney Frank who had worse indiscretions with a page. He still has good standing with his constituency and the media.
Details
09-29-2006, 10:34 PM
I suppose someone needs to mention Rep. Barney Frank who had worse indiscretions with a page. He still has good standing with his constituency and the media.Just a question - underage or not? Unwanted advances, or consentual relationship?
OneLostGrl
09-29-2006, 10:46 PM
The sickest part of the entire thing is- these perverts choose these jobs for a reason- to get closer to our children.
It is awful that we, as parents, have to second guess anyone who comes into our kids lives. Boy-scout leaders, sport coaches, Ministers (Priests), school bus drivers, teachers, etc etc.
I have such a hard time as it is, letting go of my boys, knowing they have to grow up, learn how to cook, go to movies with friends, the normal teenage stuff, but to have this ***** going on as well, I am terrified!!
j2mirish
09-29-2006, 10:56 PM
The sickest part of the entire thing is- these perverts choose these jobs for a reason- to get closer to our children.
It is awful that we, as parents, have to second guess anyone who comes into our kids lives. Boy-scout leaders, sport coaches, Ministers (Priests), school bus drivers, teachers, etc etc.
I have such a hard time as it is, letting go of my boys, knowing they have to grow up, learn how to cook, go to movies with friends, the normal teenage stuff, but to have this ***** going on as well, I am terrified!!
my husband coaches hockey- started when my son was 5--- he is now 10--- so after 5 years of coaching these kids--- and loving them to death--- he has found he cant enjoy it like he did--- just for what you said-- because of all the NUT casses involved with children...he finds himself so concerned that if he puts his hand on a boys shoulder when talking to him, a parent might go to the deep end---- point being--- even the GOOD ones invloved with children, now have to step back, when their intentions are nothing but gold...yet my husband understands, as he has 2 children----- it is such a sad----sad afair--
the bad soooooooooooooooooooooooo screw it up for the good-:furious:
OneLostGrl
09-29-2006, 11:29 PM
my husband coaches hockey- started when my son was 5--- he is now 10--- so after 5 years of coaching these kids--- and loving them to death--- he has found he cant enjoy it like he did--- just for what you said-- because of all the NUT casses involved with children...he finds himself so concerned that if he puts his hand on a boys shoulder when talking to him, a parent might go to the deep end---- point being--- even the GOOD ones invloved with children, now have to step back, when their intentions are nothing but gold...yet my husband understands, as he has 2 children----- it is such a sad----sad afair--
the bad soooooooooooooooooooooooo screw it up for the good-:furious:
Absolutely!! The people we used to trust unconditionally with our children realize life just isn't that simple anymore. The men or women, for that matter, who simply adore children and want to help them succeed in life are second guessed because of scum like this!
deanws
09-29-2006, 11:45 PM
GROSS! What a creep. That really was nasty! I quit about page 3. I couldn't read any more of that ....that.....what the h*ll was that!?!?! :silenced:
Shadow205
09-29-2006, 11:50 PM
Welcome to the new Mark Foley online campaign center! Please join our campaign by signing up for e-mail updates.
http://www.markfoley.com/
Statement from Mark Foley
Washington --Congressman Mark Foley (FL-16) this afternoon issued the following statement:
"Today I have delivered a letter to the Speaker of the House informing him of my decision to resign from the U.S. House of Representatives, effective today. I thank the people of Florida's 16th Congressional District for giving me the opportunity to serve them for the last twelve years; it has been an honor.
"I am deeply sorry and I apologize for letting down my family and the people of Florida I have had the privilege to represent."
Shadow205
09-29-2006, 11:56 PM
Pornography and sexual offenses
Foley was one of the foremost critics in the House of child pornography (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_pornography). Foley was chairman of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children. He introduced a bill in 2002 to outlaw websites featuring sexually suggestive images of preteen children, saying that "these websites are nothing more than a fix for pedophiles."[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Foley#_note-5) In June 2003 he wrote letters to the governor and attorney general of Florida, asking them to review the legality of a program for teenagers of a Lake Como nudist resort in Land O'Lakes, Florida.[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Foley#_note-6)
Foley's legislation to change federal sex offender laws was supported by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Center_for_Missing_and_Exploited_Children ), America's Most Wanted (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America%27s_Most_Wanted) host John Walsh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Walsh), and a number of victims' rights groups. President George W. Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_George_W._Bush) signed it into law as part of the Adam Walsh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Walsh) Child Safety and Protection Act of 2006.
Foley also succeeded in getting a law passed that allows volunteer youth-serving organizations like the Boy Scouts of America (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_Scouts_of_America) and Boys and Girls Clubs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boys_and_Girls_Clubs) to have access to FBI fingerprint background checks to help protect children.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Foley
hmmm...what's that old saying about "A wolf in sheeps clothing"
Details
09-30-2006, 01:11 AM
Seems he knew his subject matter very well, and exactly what was a draw for pedophiles.
SadieMae
09-30-2006, 01:14 AM
Seems he knew his subject matter very well, and exactly what was a draw for pedophiles.
IMO, you nailed it!!!!
SadieMae
09-30-2006, 02:26 AM
WTF!!!! From Palm Beach Post
"Congressional staff members who asked not to be identified said it was widely known among Hill staffers and some House leaders that Foley had been engaging in inappropriate conduct and language with young aides.
One highly placed staff member said Foley's abrupt resignation may have been demanded by Republican leaders who have been aware for some time about allegations of inappropriate behavior."
They knew about his behavior????:banghead: Now he's been exposed and the "leaders" just now "demand" his resignation? All the ones that knew of his behavior need to get their butts kicked out too!!! :furious: GEEEEEZUSCHRIST!!!!
Full story at:
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/localnews/content/local_news/epaper/2006/09/30/s1a_foley_0930.html?cxtype=rss&cxsvc=7&cxcat=17
RiverRat
09-30-2006, 08:04 AM
I have known for a while that Mark is gay, but this one really shook me to the core.
Marthatex
09-30-2006, 09:14 AM
An interesting slant on DailyKos:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/9/30/74934/3566
If they've known about it, why is it coming out right now?
kwatson696
09-30-2006, 09:37 AM
OMG:behindbar It makes ya wonder why anyone would let our children go to work as pages or whatever.....That is sooooo nasty. Poor kid...They totaly take advantage of children just like the Chandra Levy thing.
nanandjim
09-30-2006, 10:46 AM
I have known for a while that Mark is gay, but this one really shook me to the core.
Is this guy a married man? Like others have said, the big problem is he is having these inappropriate conversations with minors.
I agree with Pat Buchanan in that this guy has to be really sick if he cannot control his compulsions, especially during an election time. It's pretty scary to think that this guy is so consumed with his impulses that he engages these kids on the Internet.
That IM with the young boy seems to be Foley constantly trying to steer this young kid into a sexual conversation. The boy didn't start it and really didn't seem to want to engage in that kind of talk. The boy is clearly a heterosexual kid, too.
It's sad and disgusting and a good thing that Foley was stupid enough to leave a trail. They should get a warrant and seize his computer to see if he has illegal porn on it.
southcitymom
09-30-2006, 11:32 AM
This story blows my mind...looks like we had a wolf guarding the henhouse.And irony of ironies, he's a Florida congressman. I don't know what's in the water down there, but that state seems to breed pervs and pedophiles.
Pedro
09-30-2006, 11:36 AM
Worst than the actions of Foley himself is the cover up by the leadership of the GOP in The House. They've known for a year about Foley's sexual activities with minors but they said they "see nothing wrong" and just order him to have no contact with the children.
They sold the GOP as the party of family values and now we see its leadership completely failing to protect our children while keeping Foley in the missing and exploited children caucus.
Foley and the GOP leadership exhibit an equally abhorrent behavior only comparable with the behavior of the Catholic Church in the USA.
I don't see this issue as a gay vs. heterosexual issue, I don't care who sleep with who as long as both are consenting adults.
kelly london
09-30-2006, 11:38 AM
i have a gay son and two best friends that are gay - this is very common behavior - their lives become focused on sex and they ignore the risks to their careers, their health and sometimes even their families (one WAS married)
its a sad reality that many who are gay become obsessed with sex in any way shape or form with someone, ANYONE, just to get off, so to speak.
you cannot imagine the degradation into the world of sex that some take. i know from my own experiences - not speaking for the whole gay population
Pedro
09-30-2006, 11:43 AM
ithe world of sex that some take
What is the world of sex?
I see nothing wrong with sex, any kind of sex among consenting adults.
We can't blame sex for the lies of the GOP, their cover up for Foley's actions and those actions.
The only wrong thing here is that someone of age is having a sexual activity with a minor. Their gender is irrelevant and its use just perpetuates the hypocrisy of the conservative movement in this Nation.
It is not wrong to have sexual activities with another man, woman or in between, it is wrong to have those activities with a children.
Is not sex, is not gender, it is the age Foley!
nanandjim
09-30-2006, 11:45 AM
...We can't blame sex for the lies of the GOP, their cover up for Foley's actions and those actions...
Oh, please, Pedro, don't politicize this. There are perverts and coverups concerning sex on both sides of the fence. :rolleyes:
Marthatex
09-30-2006, 11:46 AM
sex addiction and pedophilia can be homosexual or heterosexual. Usually Men seem to have it; are we going to generalize it to the entire male population?
Pedro
09-30-2006, 11:55 AM
Oh, please, Pedro, don't politicize this. There are perverts and coverups concerning sex on both sides of the fence. :rolleyes:
Yeah? Please tell me of any cover up concerning sex with a MINOR before this. Also who impeached our previous President for having sex with a consenting adult?
Sure Foley voted to impeach.
When a democratic elected official has sexual activities out of marriage, he gets impeached, when a republican has sexual activities with a children they cover up for him.
I don't politicize anything, they did.
Remember the Governor of New Jersey?
Pedro
09-30-2006, 11:56 AM
sex addiction and pedophilia can be homosexual or heterosexual. Usually Men seem to have it; are we going to generalize it to the entire male population?
Absolutely correct, but have no doubt, the GOP will use this to further attack gay people instead of focusing in the cover up by its own leadership.
nanandjim
09-30-2006, 12:06 PM
Absolutely correct, but have no doubt, the GOP will use this to further attack gay people instead of focusing in the cover up by its own leadership.
Sorry, but I believe that you have fallen into the stereotypes that the Democrats want you to believe about Republicans. There are just as many gay bashers on the Democratic side as their is on the Republican side of the house. ;)
Don't get me wrong. If there was a coverup, I think that it should be exposed.
nanandjim
09-30-2006, 12:08 PM
...who impeached our previous President for having sex with a consenting adult?...Remember the Governor of New Jersey?
You need to actually educate yourself on the issues on which you commented in this post. They are not as you state them.
Pedro
09-30-2006, 12:21 PM
Sorry, but I believe that you have fallen into the stereotypes that the Democrats want you to believe about Republicans. There are just as many gay bashers on the Democratic side as their is on the Republican side of the house. ;)
Don't get me wrong. If there was a coverup, I think that it should be exposed.
That is incorrect, I direct you to the congressional record for the evaluation of their votes and also to the congressional watchdogs.
Gay bashing is an strategy created and crafted on its current form by Karl Rove in the mid 80's to attract the vote of conservative evangelicals not unlike the "southern strategy" crafted by Kevin Phillips for Nixon and from which the gay bashing is a component also. It was created to end the influence of Goldwater and Rockefeller republicans.
reportertype
09-30-2006, 12:25 PM
There's a difference between a gay man and someone like Mark Foley. He may have dated men in the past, but I suspect that was more of a means to an end or to hide his real preference, which is young boys.
I've known some gay men in their 20s who thought some teens they knew were attractive, but would never even consider dating them until they were of age.
reportertype
09-30-2006, 12:27 PM
Also, gay bashing has been around LONG before the 80s. Stonewall, anyone? I believe the upsurgence in "gays are bad" in the 80s was probably due to the AIDS epidemic, which was at first considered a gay disease. I was fairly young then, but I'd hazard a guess that very few politicians of any stripe came out in support of gay people.
Pedro
09-30-2006, 12:28 PM
You need to actually educate yourself on the issues on which you commented in this post. They are not as you state them.
So start now, educate me about the meetings in the late 50's and early 60's betwee Phillips and the rest of the "Klan"...go ahead and try. Tell me about their disagreement and the birth of the "southern strategy" which contains mostly bigotry against minorities and gays people and favors christian cults of dubious theological value. Also talk to me about Storm T...turned republican after democrats passed the civil rights act...go ahead, please, enlighten me!
Yes, the issues are just as I portray them, just don't like them because like most moral issues should be applied to all and that is what I am doing.
The Governor of the State of New Jersey resigned amid his affair with a man, President Clinton was impeached amid his affair with a woman.
The leadership of the GOP in the house knew since a year ago about this sexual activity between a member of its caucus and a minor and did nothing about it. What do you call that? I call it cover up, double standard and hypocrisy.
Pedro
09-30-2006, 12:34 PM
Also, gay bashing has been around LONG before the 80s. Stonewall, anyone? I believe the upsurgence in "gays are bad" in the 80s was probably due to the AIDS epidemic, which was at first considered a gay disease. I was fairly young then, but I'd hazard a guess that very few politicians of any stripe came out in support of gay people.
That is right, but it becomes part of the political strategy in the early 60's within the southern strategy.
Annie
09-30-2006, 12:35 PM
http://www.vote-smart.org/speech_detail.php?speech_id=204304&keyword=&phrase=&contain=
This is from a speech in August. He had to have known about the e-mails being investigated at the time. He should have come clean in the beginning and faced the consequences.
Pedro
09-30-2006, 12:37 PM
http://www.vote-smart.org/speech_detail.php?speech_id=204304&keyword=&phrase=&contain=
This is from a speech in August. He had to have known about the e-mails being investigated at the time. He should have come clean in the beginning and faced the consequences.
In an election year with the House at stake? I don't think so.
The leadership should have removed him last year and that wold have resolve the political problem they face now.
nanandjim
09-30-2006, 12:44 PM
That is incorrect, I direct you to the congressional record for the evaluation of their votes and also to the congressional watchdogs.
Gay bashing is an strategy created and crafted on its current form by Karl Rove in the mid 80's to attract the vote of conservative evangelicals not unlike the "southern strategy" crafted by Kevin Phillips for Nixon and from which the gay bashing is a component also. It was created to end the influence of Goldwater and Rockefeller republicans.
Look, Pedro, I am not going to spend my time arguing with you. You obviously have a bone to pick with giving only partial information to substantiate your viewpoints. Adios and the best of luck to you.
Pedro
09-30-2006, 01:12 PM
Look, Pedro, I am not going to spend my time arguing with you. You obviously have a bone to pick with giving only partial information to substantiate your viewpoints. Adios and the best of luck to you.
Where is the partial information within the congressional record of the house to where I directed you?
Where is the partial information about the sexual activities of Foley with a minor and the content of some of those messages?
Where is the partial information when the Speaker of the House (R-IL ) Dennis Hastert and the House Majority Leader (R-OH) John Boehner said they knew about this for a year now and just ask Foley to end the contacts?
So tell me, what information I wrote which is not accurate or is partial?
I can't find any excuse for having sexual activities with a child and even less to cover up for it, some republicans obviously do.
Yes, adios, you don't like rules which apply to all.
Annie
09-30-2006, 01:28 PM
Something like this is wrong, but I don't think it is the fault of the political party. When people get it in their head to do something like this, it isn't the party doing it. It is one individual who does it and is responsible for it.
SadieMae
09-30-2006, 02:00 PM
Something like this is wrong, but I don't think it is the fault of the political party. When people get it in their head to do something like this, it isn't the party doing it. It is one individual who does it and is responsible for it.
AMEN!!!! :clap: :clap:
Pedro
09-30-2006, 02:24 PM
Something like this is wrong, but I don't think it is the fault of the political party. When people get it in their head to do something like this, it isn't the party doing it. It is one individual who does it and is responsible for it.
Agreed but why he wasn't ask to resign, reported to the Hill police and removed from the missing and exploited children caucus a year ago? Now that is politics and the GOP's politics.
SadieMae
09-30-2006, 02:33 PM
Agreed but why he wasn't ask to resign, reported to the Hill police and removed from the missing and exploited children caucus a year ago? Now that is politics and the GOP's politics.
That was my earlier question. If they knew why didn't they get him out. I really think it's more of the "good 'ole boys" club situation more than GOP politics. And maybe he knew about their dirty laundry too! Yeah, kinda like "cast the first stone".
Masterj
09-30-2006, 02:35 PM
Sorry, but I believe that you have fallen into the stereotypes that the Democrats want you to believe about Republicans. There are just as many gay bashers on the Democratic side as their is on the Republican side of the house. ;)
Don't get me wrong. If there was a coverup, I think that it should be exposed.
I agree with the point you are trying to make to Pedro. However, I hope you see that in this post you are doing EXACTLY what you accuse Pedro of doing! Your second sentence is dead on but the by saying "the Democrats want you to believe about Republicans" you fall into the same generic stereotyping that Pedro was doing.
Bottom line - in any political party you can find your share of pedophiles, drug abusers, cheaters, etc. Just as in any political party you can find your share of caring individuals who legitimately want to help steer this country in the right direction. We are not helping the state of our country by furthering this division between our parties. Democrats, Republicans, Conservatives, Liberals - those are not bad words and should not be used as insults. Are we really so stunted intellectually that when we disagree with each other politically that we revert to our 4 year old selves and hurl these names as if they are insults? The political battle lines we have used to split our country are only going to lead to failure if we don't get back on track, unite and start focusing on what is important to ALL OF US.
Such as getting pervs like Mark Foley away from our children.
Pedro
09-30-2006, 02:43 PM
That was my earlier question. If they knew why didn't they get him out. I really think it's more of the "good 'ole boys" club situation more than GOP politics. And maybe he knew about their dirty laundry too! Yeah, kinda like "cast the first stone".
It wasn't done because during the Tom Delay era the GOP was more focused in the machine than it was in reality. Once he was gone, they just had a few days to deal with this before the campaign got hot. Dennis Hastert should have done it a year ago.
Pedro
09-30-2006, 02:46 PM
I agree with the point you are trying to make to Pedro. However, I hope you see that in this post you are doing EXACTLY what you accuse Pedro of doing! Your second sentence is dead on but the by saying "the Democrats want you to believe about Republicans" you fall into the same generic stereotyping that Pedro was doing.
I am blaming the GOP for running on values while keeping a man known to be involved in sexual activities with a minor in the missing and exploited children caucus for a YEAR.
Such as getting pervs like Mark Foley away from our children.
Right, and that should have been done a YEAR ago.
Yep, we got a bone and we are going to chew on it!
RiverRat
09-30-2006, 02:50 PM
"Is this guy a married man? Like others have said, the big problem is he is having these inappropriate conversations with minors."
Foley is not married.
Pedro
09-30-2006, 03:02 PM
"Is this guy a married man? Like others have said, the big problem is he is having these inappropriate conversations with minors."
Foley is not married.
Yes, he is not married. Don't get me wrong, I had no problem with the man before this, it is a very sad story and I am sure he couldn't help himself.
But DH should have remove him a year ago!
It's just politics, nothing personal, people do what they have to do.
HeartofTexas
09-30-2006, 03:24 PM
IMO, there are three problems here.
One, this man was abusing underage children. "Nuff said on that topic.
Two, Washington knew about this particular problem and covered it up.
Three, sexual cover-ups in Washington have been going on for years and years.
What angers me the most, though, is that this man was chairman of the caucus for missing and exploited children. When you have the fox guarding the hen house, and all of the other foxes know that he's guarding the hen house and do absolutely nothing about it, then there's more than one hen with a problem that needs addressing.
Where is the public's outrage over this being allowed to happen for a year with no disciplinary actions against Foley?
HeartofTexas
09-30-2006, 03:40 PM
As you can see from the cases listed below, sex with underrage children is a problem for both parties:
Rep. Fred Richmond (D-N.Y.)
In April 1978, Richmond was arrested in Washington for soliciting sex from a 16-year-old boy.
Rep. Robert Bauman (R-Md.)
On Oct. 3, 1980, Bauman, a leading "pro-family" conservative, pleaded innocent to a charge that he committed oral sodomy on a teenage boy in Washington.
1983 - Reps. Dan Crane (R-Ill.) and Gerry Studds (D-Mass.)
The House ethics committee on July 14, 1983, announced that Crane and Studds had sexual relationships with teenage congressional pages – Crane with a 17-year-old female in 1980, Studds with a 17-year-old male in 1973. Both admitted the charges that same day, and Studds acknowledged he was gay.
Rep. Donald "Buz" Lukens (R-Ohio)
On Feb. 1, 1989, an Ohio TV station aired a videotape of a confrontation between Lukens, a conservative activist, and the mother of a Columbus teenager. The mother charged that Lukens had been paying to have sex with her daughter since she was 13.
Rep. Mel Reynolds (D-Ill.)
Freshman Reynolds was indicted on Aug. 19, 1994, on charges of having sex with a 16-year-old campaign worker and then pressuring her to lie about it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/congress.htm
Pedro
09-30-2006, 03:47 PM
That is the point H. of T., they kept him in that caucus for a year and now they pretend to made of this a "gay people" issue. Like all gay men and woman like underage kids and that is wrong.
SadieMae
09-30-2006, 04:25 PM
That is the point H. of T., they kept him in that caucus for a year and now they pretend to made of this a "gay people" issue. Like all gay men and woman like underage kids and that is wrong.I agree with you on this. This is NOT about being gay, it's about being a pedophile. Pedophiles can be hetro or gay. I have many gay friends of both sexes. And I can say they are some very caring and decent people. My gay male friends are "uncles" to my sons, and they don't have a problem with their "Uncle Rob" being gay. My boys know there is a difference between gay and pedophile. Their Uncle Rob has been the closest thing to a father they have ever had.
ETA: He'd also be the first in line to kick A$$ if anyone ever touched my boys inappropriately!
my husband coaches hockey- started when my son was 5--- he is now 10--- so after 5 years of coaching these kids--- and loving them to death--- he has found he cant enjoy it like he did--- just for what you said-- because of all the NUT casses involved with children...he finds himself so concerned that if he puts his hand on a boys shoulder when talking to him, a parent might go to the deep end---- point being--- even the GOOD ones invloved with children, now have to step back, when their intentions are nothing but gold...yet my husband understands, as he has 2 children----- it is such a sad----sad afair--
the bad soooooooooooooooooooooooo screw it up for the good-:furious:
I know what you mean. I coached my sons Little Leauge tem from 1989-1999. Before we even had a practice we would call a meeting with all parents.Letting them know no kid will be with only 1 coach after a practice we would all stay.We as parents took the extra steps to make sure no one could say a word.During games We made sure when we did touch thier kids we did it right in front of the parents. So they could also listen to what was being said.The parents I had for 10 years were great.They never doubted the coaches or managers. They also knew that if thier child needed a ride home from either a game or practice it would not just be a coach and kid. we made sure we had more then 3 in the car.
Details
09-30-2006, 05:26 PM
WTF!!!! From Palm Beach Post
"Congressional staff members who asked not to be identified said it was widely known among Hill staffers and some House leaders that Foley had been engaging in inappropriate conduct and language with young aides.
One highly placed staff member said Foley's abrupt resignation may have been demanded by Republican leaders who have been aware for some time about allegations of inappropriate behavior."
They knew about his behavior????:banghead: Now he's been exposed and the "leaders" just now "demand" his resignation? All the ones that knew of his behavior need to get their butts kicked out too!!! :furious: GEEEEEZUSCHRIST!!!!
Full story at:
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/localnews/content/local_news/epaper/2006/09/30/s1a_foley_0930.html?cxtype=rss&cxsvc=7&cxcat=17That's what I was afraid of - the standard political thing - defend your own, no matter what horrible thing they are doing, to avoid losing power. I hope we find out more about that - who has known and kept quiet - and how much did they know? Rumors - OK, they can easily believe the rumors to be malicious gossip- but if they knew facts, then I'm ticked, and they need to pay a price too.
Details
09-30-2006, 05:34 PM
If I might suggest? Let's leave the political party out of it, and just go after those who cover up for pedophile politicians, of any party. If there is some party bias to coverups, then this method will penalize that party appropriately. If there isn't, it'll go after the right people in any case - those who would cover up for the inevitable pedophile (or rapist). Never mind that this time it's the GOP - higher ups knew about the problem, and just left this guy, not only in office, but even in a very sensitive, inappropriate committe!!! Those who knew shoudl be punished, should lose their power because they apparently cannot use is appropriately.
Details
09-30-2006, 05:48 PM
More info http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/30/foley.quits/index.html
We'll see how, and if, the investigation goes. I've a nasty feeling that sending it to the commitee, rather than starting an investigation immediately, is a stalling move, in hopes the heat will die down, and the people who knew but did nothing can be spared - but we'll see how the House Ethics Committee handles it.
Details
09-30-2006, 06:13 PM
Here is Time's view on it:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1541195,00.html?cnn=yes
Seems a little whitewashy - saying the emails were maybe innocuous or innocent? No - "horny" is not innocuous. I'd like to take your shorts off is not innocuous.
Shadow205
09-30-2006, 06:28 PM
IMO, there are three problems here.
One, this man was abusing underage children. "Nuff said on that topic.
Two, Washington knew about this particular problem and covered it up.
Three, sexual cover-ups in Washington have been going on for years and years.
What angers me the most, though, is that this man was chairman of the caucus for missing and exploited children. When you have the fox guarding the hen house, and all of the other foxes know that he's guarding the hen house and do absolutely nothing about it, then there's more than one hen with a problem that needs addressing.
Where is the public's outrage over this being allowed to happen for a year with no disciplinary actions against Foley?
HoT,
When you read this, did you think "Johnny Gosch"? I did.
Details
09-30-2006, 06:37 PM
Just one more - some about who knew. They keep whitewashing the real tone of the emails.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060930/ap_on_go_co/foley_reynolds
Marthatex
09-30-2006, 07:00 PM
Something like this is wrong, but I don't think it is the fault of the political party. When people get it in their head to do something like this, it isn't the party doing it. It is one individual who does it and is responsible for it.
It's the cover-up that is the fault of the political party, or at least those leading it. In this case.
It's too bad when the cover-up then becomes center stage, instead of dealing with the crime and the perpetrator to begin with.
Details
09-30-2006, 07:03 PM
It's the cover-up that is the fault of the political party, or at least those leading it. In this case.
It's too bad when the cover-up then becomes center stage, instead of dealing with the crime and the perpetrator to begin with.The crime is being dealt with - the cover up is still what needs to be found out. Anyone who would cover up this type of crime must be found out, and does not belong making the laws and possibly protecting other powerful criminals, in Congress, or on whatever political party or organization they might belong to.
Pedro
09-30-2006, 07:08 PM
It's the cover-up that is the fault of the political party, or at least those leading it. In this case.
It's too bad when the cover-up then becomes center stage, instead of dealing with the crime and the perpetrator to begin with.
Yes, but this is an election year and people does what they are suppose to do.
We got a bone, we are chewing.
Marthatex
09-30-2006, 07:17 PM
Oh, I'm not saying the cover-up shouldn't be investigated and consequences rendered; it's very important.
I meant that it's a shame it takes away from concentration on the original crime, which should have been the problem to be dealt with. (A shame for the Republicans; why did they do such a stupid thing?)
Pedro
09-30-2006, 07:24 PM
Oh, I'm not saying the cover-up shouldn't be investigated and consequences rendered; it's very important.
I meant that it's a shame it takes away from concentration on the original crime, which should have been the problem to be dealt with.
That happens for two reasons:
1. - The GOP is trying hard to separate themselves from the issue, anything they said will look like a justification.
2. - The democrats think there is a good chance to capitalize in the story by moving the issue beyond Foley and into the leadership of the GOP in the house.
See, oil prices went down, so this is a treat.
Politics, just that, nothing personal.
However I can tell you that I see no reason to keep Foley on that caucus, I can only compare the behaviour of the leadership of the GOP to that of the leadership of the Catholic Church in the US.
Marthatex
09-30-2006, 07:30 PM
That happens for two reasons:
1. - The GOP is trying hard to separate themselves from the issue, anything they said will look like a justification.
2. - The democrats think there is a good chance to capitalize in the story by moving the issue beyond Foley and into the leadership of the GOP in the house.
See, oil prices went down, so this is a treat.
Politics, just that, nothing personal.
However I can tell you that I see no reason to keep Foley on that caucus, I can only compare the behaviour of the leadership of the GOP to that of the leadership of the Catholic Church in the US.
I can definitely see an analogy there.
It's definitely a bone to chew, as several top leaders may be proved to be dishonest; about a subject dear to their base - "family values, etc."
You take a supervisor of any school or business in this United States, and I can't imagine any competent one looking the other way from this type of illicit behavior.
Pedro
09-30-2006, 07:45 PM
I can definitely see an analogy there.
It's definitely a bone to chew, as several top leaders may be proved to be dishonest; about a subject dear to their base - "family values, etc."
You take a supervisor of any school or business in this United States, and I can't imagine any competent one looking the other way from this type of illicit behavior.
Exactly, tomorrow in the talk shows and Monday we'll have an outcry for family values, against the GOP's cover up and for a return of morals to the public life.
Indicted Tom Delay and his convicted associates, the 400 contacts between Abrm. and the WH and anything else available.
Don't you love election years? Just wait for the 527's TV add targeting Foley and the GOP's cover up...
IdahoMom
09-30-2006, 07:50 PM
Exactly, tomorrow in the talk shows and Monday we'll have an outcry for family values, against the GOP's cover up and for a return of morals to the public life.
Indicted Tom Delay and his convicted associates, the 400 contacts between Abrm. and the WH and anything else available.
Don't you love election years? Just wait for the 527's TV add targeting Foley and the GOP's cover up...
Can you please knock it off? Save the bash for the Political Pavilion. I'm a Republican and I am not a member of the 527 club plus I have stated I want to see the book thrown at the pervert. Several other Conservatives have spoken out against Foley, and you just keep spinning the political end of it.
IMO, most politicians are hypocrites!
Pedro
09-30-2006, 07:57 PM
Can you please knock it off? Save the bash for the Political Pavilion. I'm a Republican and I am not a member of the 527 club plus I have stated I want to see the book thrown at the pervert. Several other Conservatives have spoken out against Foley, and you just keep spinning the political end of it.
Sure, as soon as you explain me why the leadership of the GOP in The House kept Foley in the missing and exploited children caucus after they knew what he was doing.
I am not spinning, you are. It will be nice to just blame Foley and not those who kept him there instead of having him removed.
Sorry, your mess, clean it up!
Pedro
09-30-2006, 08:54 PM
For those who doubt of my information.
From Roll Call:
Reynolds Informed Hastert of Allegations Against Foley
Saturday, Sept. 30; 4:39 pm
National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Tom Reynolds (N.Y.) issued a statement Saturday in which he said that he had informed Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) of allegations of improper contacts between then-Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.) and at least one former male page, contradicting earlier statements from Hastert.
GOP sources said Reynolds told Hastert earlier in 2006, shortly after the February GOP leadership elections. Hastert's response to Reynolds' warning remains unclear.
Hastert's staff insisted Friday night that he was not told of the Foley allegations and are scrambling to respond to Reynolds' statement.
Following is the text of that statement.
"Rodney Alexander brought to my attention the existence of e-mails between Mark Foley and a former page of Mr. [Rodney Alexander's [R-La.]. 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.
"Mr. Alexander has also said he took the matter to the Clerk of the House. An investigation was then conducted by the Clerk and [Illinois GOP Rep.] John Shimkus on behalf of the House Page Board.
"Mark Foley betrayed the integrity of this institution as well as the trust of his colleagues and constituents. There is no excuse, and he needs to be held accountable."
Bold mine.
southcitymom
09-30-2006, 09:08 PM
Can you please knock it off? Save the bash for the Political Pavilion. I'm a Republican and I am not a member of the 527 club plus I have stated I want to see the book thrown at the pervert. Several other Conservatives have spoken out against Foley, and you just keep spinning the political end of it.
IMO, most politicians are hypocrites!
Amen. The difference between a Republican and a Democrat is like the difference between a crack addict and a heroin addict. Good luck to us all as we try to choose b/w the lesser of those two evils...
HeartofTexas
09-30-2006, 09:10 PM
I think the larger problem (IMO) is that many Washington politicians have some kind of illicit sex scandal to hide themselves... so they would be the last to "out" a fellow politician, for fear their own sex scandal would be the next to be revealed. There are certainly a few good ones, but I think in general they are pretty sleezy. I wish someone would clean up, or clean out, the whole mess and just start over. Then maybe there would be some REAL "family values" instead of just lip service about it.
HeartofTexas
09-30-2006, 09:11 PM
BTW, in my previous post, I didn't mean to imply in any way that the illicit sex scandals most politicians are hiding from are with underage children. I was just talking about sex in general... having affairs, seeking out a prostitute, etc.
Details
09-30-2006, 11:20 PM
It's really true, and really sad that there are so many issues that they can't tell the truth about the minor stuff, so they maybe end up in mutual blackmail that may hide serious and real problems.
Foley wanted to run for higher office, but rumors he was gay (sad he had to hide that in order to be in office) kept him from that. An affair, or even a rumor of one, all kinds of minor things that you or I wouldn't have to worry about, politicians need to keep hidden because the media and puritans won't stop digging and making a huge deal about even an appearance of minor impropriety. So, politicians must pretend to be June and Ward Cleaver. We need to get back to the idea of private lives, and stop salivating over things that are not illegal - consentual sex, even if an affair, is a matter for the two people involved, and any spouses. Sexual harassment, rape, pedophelia - those should not be kept private in the least. But right now, those are all mixed together - the consentual and the sick are equally career destroying and equally in the closet.
Straitfan
10-01-2006, 12:23 AM
Hey
Does anywho have an email address for him? Went to his web site, no address there.. Just want to BOMBARD him with my little opinion!! :twocents: Hope they stick him in a swamp in Fl and let the aligators attack him along with ALL the other pediophles (man, my dictionary must be old, didn't have spelling for that word/term)
I don't care what side of the fence he is on, has absolutely nothing to do with politics.. He is a creep/disgusting thing?!?!. If anyone an email addy for him, please post. Thanks
Straitfan
10-01-2006, 12:33 AM
Sorry Details,
I disagree with you re: politicans.. THEY SHOULD be the Cleavers and if they can't, don't go there. They are elected to represent.. if you are not the most upstanding human, by all means move over and give it to the person that is.. Sorry, not agreeing with it, you want to be non-discreet average Joe, then stay an average Joe... I have done things wrong in my life but if one does not have any integrity, you don't stand a chance with me.. Bill Clinton, getting a bj in the whitehouse, nope that is just PLAIN and SIMPLE wrong!! If they want to do those things, stay home.. period...............They KNOW going in their life becames PUBLIC and should... It's their chose, which only makes them WORSE humans because they knew it and dont care!!!!
Details
10-01-2006, 12:40 AM
Lots of good people are not the Cleavers. Maybe they are gay. Maybe they are single. Maybe they and their wife/husband have some sort of arrangement or open marriage. Or maybe their marriage is a mistake they get a divorce. What should be important is how good they are as a politician. The private life should be private, unless it involves a crime.
And the most upstanding moral person may be a lousy politician - they may not want to do it, they may not be good with power politics, they may and often do have a problem understanding how some people who are not upstanding and moral think (and since most laws involve those people, it's vital to understand more of life than just the good side of town).
I want the person in office who is the best possible at the job. Their personal life may have some impact on it if they are pedophile or some other bit, but aside from that it doesn't matter, so long as they will work to get good laws passed.
I've had a very boring life, don't drink, don't smoke, don't do drugs, am not remotely or slightly pormiscuous - boring. Got married, got pregnant, had baby, living happily ever after. But if I were in a campaign, I can think of some things that could be turned into a nice slimy campaign against me - and it's nothing immoral, nothing unethical, nothing criminal, nothing wrong at all, but we're just so weird about all this sex stuff that it's easy to take advantage of it and spin normal behavior into a sex scandal.
Straitfan
10-01-2006, 01:28 AM
I hear you Details,
Guess for me it comes down to morals, if one has morals, pedofile / (not going with the open marriage in politics, sorry! ) doesn't cut it. Hiring illegeal help to save your almighty $ , doesnt cut it. It is not a moral decision.. Our children see these issues on TV, how does one tell an 8 - 9 yr old, honey, the Prez just let his pants down, bad decision on his part.. We have a hugh amount of problems in this country and our young are overall deteriorating, we have to do something to change it. And it is not just the children, our whole life/opionions about what is "ok" is going downhill. I am not referring to being gay, while I have my own opinion about that I also do not base/nor judge on that as I myself do not understand all the how/whys etc. and have alot of friends that are gay.. But when one represents themselves as "Hey married, Senator, pedifile.. (cant sp) I have serious issues with that because that effects the core of society whether one admits it or not. And the problem is it is not just short term that these "issues" are impacting but it is our everyday life, as well as has we are treating others..
Details
10-01-2006, 01:38 AM
You know - I did say I wasn't talking about illegal stuff - so I'm not saying either that a pedophile is OK - nor hiring illegals or whatever.
But things that aren't illegal - I don't think it's any of our business. Our children see these issues on TV, how does one tell an 8 - 9 yr old, honey, the Prez just let his pants down, bad decision on his part.We don't tell kids about what married couples do behind closed doors - you wouldn't be talking to your kids about how the Prez had a blow job from his wife - that's just as much of a thing you don't want to discuss w/ kids - why are we talking about it when it's someone else?
Straitfan
10-01-2006, 02:03 AM
I would not have discussed it with my kids but given the fact that it was on the news day in/day out for someone to hide it from children is unrealistic.. I am not overall attempting to argue politics..Guess my bottom line (and I am very happy my kids are 20 and 22) and not small, is our society is extremely way out of control and the more we "accept as acceptable" the worse it is getting. I am not some "old person: though I will say life was much better in my young days so I have no doubt someone who might be considered real old probably had an overall better life. My end of story is we as an "overall society" have became "not good.. bottom line, the life the young have facing them is messed up to say the least. And the reasons are many.
Details
10-01-2006, 02:18 AM
To me, that is the problem - not that something sexual happened, but that it was broadcast on the news 24/7, when it was not a crime. It'd be just as disgusting and inappropriate had they broadcast the same thing about a single man, or about a married man when the woman was his wife.
Details
10-01-2006, 02:21 AM
....so I have no doubt someone who might be considered real old probably had an overall better life. My end of story is we as an "overall society" have became "not good.. bottom line, the life the young have facing them is messed up to say the least. And the reasons are many.You might discuss that with my grandmother - who is real old - and would definitely not say the same thing. She doesn't approve of all of the changes, but there are some major things that we take for granted that she had to grow up with.
Straitfan
10-01-2006, 02:32 AM
Guess I didn't do a good job of clarifying my "overall point"so, we can leave it at that.. Have a great rest of your weekend! :cool:
[QUOTE=Pedro]Yes, he is not married. Don't get me wrong, I had no problem with the man before this, it is a very sad story and I am sure he couldn't help himself./QUOTE]
This is very dangerous thinking in my opnion. An adult CAN help himself, a two year old can not help themselves. If he had these compulsions, then he needed to get help. Go see a therapist, doctor, lock himself in his home with no computeror phone, get himself castrated for goodness sake !!! Just do something!!. He CHOSE not to help himself. I am quite certain he could help himself!!!!
mjak
Pedro
10-01-2006, 10:48 AM
[QUOTE=Pedro]Yes, he is not married. Don't get me wrong, I had no problem with the man before this, it is a very sad story and I am sure he couldn't help himself./QUOTE]
This is very dangerous thinking in my opnion. An adult CAN help himself, a two year old can not help themselves. If he had these compulsions, then he needed to get help. Go see a therapist, doctor, lock himself in his home with no computeror phone, get himself castrated for goodness sake !!! Just do something!!. He CHOSE not to help himself. I am quite certain he could help himself!!!!
mjak
My tongue was coming all the way through my cheek amid the support for this alleged pedophile by the leadership of the House.
Marthatex
10-01-2006, 10:49 AM
[QUOTE=Pedro]Yes, he is not married. Don't get me wrong, I had no problem with the man before this, it is a very sad story and I am sure he couldn't help himself./QUOTE]
This is very dangerous thinking in my opnion. An adult CAN help himself, a two year old can not help themselves. If he had these compulsions, then he needed to get help. Go see a therapist, doctor, lock himself in his home with no computeror phone, get himself castrated for goodness sake !!! Just do something!!. He CHOSE not to help himself. I am quite certain he could help himself!!!!
mjak
If it's a sexual addiction or compulsion - compare it to alcoholism or drug addiction - they don't really WANT to get help, because they want the next HIGH.
Often it takes an intervention, or tough love to force an addict to get help, or someone with serious depression or mental problems.
This man was addicted to what he did, to the point he snuck around and lied to cover up, and what's happening to him now is TOUGH CONSEQUENCES.
I agree that he could have gotten help, but I doubt that he wanted to badly enough.
Pedro
10-01-2006, 11:04 AM
Here is a timeline from ThinkProgress.org. As a side note, it corresponds to the timelines presented in today's NYT and W. Post:
2003 — Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) has sexually explicit IM exchanges with an underage boy who worked as a Congressional page. [ABC News, 9/29/06]
2005 — Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) sends inappropriate emails to another former Congressional page. [CREW]
SEPTEMBER 2005 — Rep. Rodney Alexander (R-LA), who sponsored the page, learns “of the e-mails from a reporter.” [AP, 9/29/06; CQ, 9/30/06]
FALL 2005 — “Tim Kennedy, a staff assistant in the [Speaker J. Denis Hastert’s] Office, received a telephone call from Congressman Rodney Alexander’s Chief of Staff who indicated that he had an email exchange between Congressman Foley and a former House page…[Mike] Stokke [Deputy Chief of Staff for Speaker Hastert] called the Clerk and asked him to come to the Speaker’s Office so that he could put him together with Congressman Alexander’s Chief of Staff.” [Hastert Statement, 9/30/06]
LATE 2005 — Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL), Chairman of the House Page Board, “was notified by the then Clerk of the House, who manages the Page Program, that he had been told by Congressman Rodney Alexander (R-LA) about an email exchange between Congressman Foley and a former House Page.” Shimkus interviewed Foley and told him “to cease all contact with this former house page.” He did not inform Rep. Dale Kildee (D-MI), the only Democrat on the House page Board. [Roll Call, 9/29/06]
FEBRUARY/MARCH 2006 — Alexander tells NRCC chairman Tom Reynolds about “the existence of e-mails between Mark Foley and a former page of Mr. Alexander’s.” Reynolds tells Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) about the emails and his conversation with Alexander. [Reynolds Statement, 9/30/06; Roll Call, 9/30/06; Hastert Statement, 9/30/06]
SPRING 2006 — House Majority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) learns of “inappropriate ‘contact’ between Foley and a 16-year-old page.” After leaning about Foley’s conduct, Boehner told Speaker of the House J. Denis Hastert who assured Boehner he would “take care of it.” Later, Boehner changed his story and told the Washington Post he didn’t remember whether he talked to Hastert. [Washington Post, 9/30/06; New York Times, 10/1/06]
JULY 27, 2006 — Foley, still co-chairman of the Congressional Missing and Exploited Children’s Caucus, attends a signing ceremony at the White House for the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006. [White House, 9/27/06; Talkingpointsmemo, 9/30/06; Washington Post, 10/1/06]
SEPTEMBER 28, 2006 — ABC publishes emails between Foley and former page. [ABC, 9/28/06]
SEPTEMBER 29, 2006 — Foley resigns. [ABC, 9/29/06]
SEPTEMBER 29, 2006 — ABC publishes sexually explict Instant Messages between Foley and several former pages. [ABC, 9/29/06]
SEPTEMBER 29, 2006 — “Aides to the speaker [Hastert] say he was not aware until last week of inappropriate behavior by Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla., who resigned on Friday after portions of racy e-mail exchanges between him and current and former underage congressional pages became public.” [Chicago Tribune, 9/30/06]
SEPTEMBER 30, 2006 — Hastert admits he was told about the emails by Reynolds in the spring. [Hastert Statement, 9/30/06]
If it's a sexual addiction or compulsion - compare it to alcoholism or drug addiction - they don't really WANT to get help, because they want the next HIGH.
Often it takes an intervention, or tough love to force an addict to get help, or someone with serious depression or mental problems.
This man was addicted to what he did, to the point he snuck around and lied to cover up, and what's happening to him now is TOUGH CONSEQUENCES.
I agree that he could have gotten help, but I doubt that he wanted to badly enough.
I take a very tough stand on the topic of addictions. As an adult who grew up in the home of a father who was a drug addict I believe adults make a choice to continue there addictions. Where I am symapthetic to the difficulties of dealing with addiction I firmly believe adults have a responsiblity both to themselves and maybe even more importantly to these they hurt by there addictions to get help. They CAN get help they choose not to. I believe it is a choice. When the choice to continue an addiction results in hurting a child, spouse or another human being then I believe the addict is fully responsible for the pain they cause others and if it is criminal hurt then they should be held accountable. An adult has a choice to live a life that is distructive to themsleves they do not have the right (because of an addiction) to be distructive to others.
mjak
Marthatex
10-01-2006, 12:16 PM
I take a very tough stand on the topic of addictions. As an adult who grew up in the home of a father who was a drug addict I believe adults make a choice to continue there addictions. Where I am symapthetic to the difficulties of dealing with addiction I firmly believe adults have a responsiblity both to themselves and maybe even more importantly to these they hurt by there addictions to get help. They CAN get help they choose not to. I believe it is a choice. When the choice to continue an addiction results in hurting a child, spouse or another human being then I believe the addict is fully responsible for the pain they cause others and if it is criminal hurt then they should be held accountable. An adult has a choice to live a life that is distructive to themsleves they do not have the right (because of an addiction) to be distructive to others.
mjak
If that were true, every addicted person would just quit drinking and smoking TOMORROW. Nothing to it.
Ohh, this is bad, I'm hurting my family, think I'll just quit.
In reality it's more like: YOU'RE GETTING A DIVORCE IF YOU DON't QUIT
Or, YOU'RE LOSING YOUR JOB PRONTO
Or, YOU'RE GOING TO DIE SOON IF YOU DON'T QUIT
You can't tell me it doesn't often take the riot act or tough love to get people into treatment. The one who goes on his own is certainly to be commended.
After the addiction sets in, we are controlled by the "addiction talking to us"; and I have had experience with it in my family as well, as well as a brother-in-law who is a psychiatrist and treats addictions.
I definitely believe in personal responsibility also; and hopefully in most of us, that keeps us from getting too deep into a bad habit or addiction to begin with.
Also I think women tend to go for help and get out of their addictions more easily than men do; I think that is proven in the research.
Marthatex
10-01-2006, 12:26 PM
Here is a timeline from ThinkProgress.org. As a side note, it corresponds to the timelines presented in today's NYT and W. Post:
2003 — Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) has sexually explicit IM exchanges with an underage boy who worked as a Congressional page. [ABC News, 9/29/06]
2005 — Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) sends inappropriate emails to another former Congressional page. [CREW]
SEPTEMBER 2005 — Rep. Rodney Alexander (R-LA), who sponsored the page, learns “of the e-mails from a reporter.” [AP, 9/29/06; CQ, 9/30/06]
FALL 2005 — “Tim Kennedy, a staff assistant in the [Speaker J. Denis Hastert’s] Office, received a telephone call from Congressman Rodney Alexander’s Chief of Staff who indicated that he had an email exchange between Congressman Foley and a former House page…[Mike] Stokke [Deputy Chief of Staff for Speaker Hastert] called the Clerk and asked him to come to the Speaker’s Office so that he could put him together with Congressman Alexander’s Chief of Staff.” [Hastert Statement, 9/30/06]
LATE 2005 — Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL), Chairman of the House Page Board, “was notified by the then Clerk of the House, who manages the Page Program, that he had been told by Congressman Rodney Alexander (R-LA) about an email exchange between Congressman Foley and a former House Page.” Shimkus interviewed Foley and told him “to cease all contact with this former house page.” He did not inform Rep. Dale Kildee (D-MI), the only Democrat on the House page Board. [Roll Call, 9/29/06]
FEBRUARY/MARCH 2006 — Alexander tells NRCC chairman Tom Reynolds about “the existence of e-mails between Mark Foley and a former page of Mr. Alexander’s.” Reynolds tells Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) about the emails and his conversation with Alexander. [Reynolds Statement, 9/30/06; Roll Call, 9/30/06; Hastert Statement, 9/30/06]
SPRING 2006 — House Majority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) learns of “inappropriate ‘contact’ between Foley and a 16-year-old page.” After leaning about Foley’s conduct, Boehner told Speaker of the House J. Denis Hastert who assured Boehner he would “take care of it.” Later, Boehner changed his story and told the Washington Post he didn’t remember whether he talked to Hastert. [Washington Post, 9/30/06; New York Times, 10/1/06]
JULY 27, 2006 — Foley, still co-chairman of the Congressional Missing and Exploited Children’s Caucus, attends a signing ceremony at the White House for the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006. [White House, 9/27/06; Talkingpointsmemo, 9/30/06; Washington Post, 10/1/06]
SEPTEMBER 28, 2006 — ABC publishes emails between Foley and former page. [ABC, 9/28/06]
SEPTEMBER 29, 2006 — Foley resigns. [ABC, 9/29/06]
SEPTEMBER 29, 2006 — ABC publishes sexually explict Instant Messages between Foley and several former pages. [ABC, 9/29/06]
SEPTEMBER 29, 2006 — “Aides to the speaker [Hastert] say he was not aware until last week of inappropriate behavior by Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla., who resigned on Friday after portions of racy e-mail exchanges between him and current and former underage congressional pages became public.” [Chicago Tribune, 9/30/06]
SEPTEMBER 30, 2006 — Hastert admits he was told about the emails by Reynolds in the spring. [Hastert Statement, 9/30/06]
Thanks for the timeline; the facts.
Interesting that the only Democratic member of the Page Committee wasn't told last year. Partisanship should always come ahead of committee responsibilities, I suppose.
I'm surprised Hastert dropped the ball like that. I always thought he was a pretty decent guy.
This probably should be in the political forum, as it involves a political cover-up, IMO.
HeartofTexas
10-01-2006, 01:22 PM
SEPTEMBER 29, 2006 — “Aides to the speaker [Hastert] say he was not aware until last week of inappropriate behavior by Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla., who resigned on Friday after portions of racy e-mail exchanges between him and current and former underage congressional pages became public.” [Chicago Tribune, 9/30/06]
SEPTEMBER 30, 2006 — Hastert admits he was told about the emails by Reynolds in the spring. [Hastert Statement, 9/30/06] Gee, I wonder what lightbulb kind of moment happened to Hastert that in a mere 24-hour period he was able to recall something on the 30th that he never even knew about on the 29th.
It's this kind of cover-up and lies that make my blood boil. On the one hand you have a pedophile in office and on the other hand you have someone in office covering up for him. And these are the people we not only vote to represent us, but our tax dollars pay their salary? I ask again... where is the OUTRAGE? When are Americans going to stand up and say, "I've had enough... I want accountability... I want more than lip service paid to family values!".
IdahoMom
10-01-2006, 01:25 PM
If Hastert covered it up, then he should resign too.
Shadow205
10-01-2006, 01:47 PM
WASHINGTON — A spokesman for the Florida Department of Law Enforcement confirmed late Saturday the agency is deciding whether to press charges against former U.S. Rep. Mark Foley, who hastily resigned from office Friday.
"We will be discussing this matter with the FBI in an effort to determine if there are grounds for a criminal investigation and if so, who has jurisdiction," said Tom Berlinger, chief media spokesman for the FDLE.
Berlinger said the decision would be made this week. He added the FDLE had not contacted Foley about the matter.
FBI officials could not be reached for comment Saturday. Foley, who served in the U.S. House of Representatives for 12 years, resigned Friday after reports he exchanged a series of sexually explicit instant messages with a congressional page who is still in high school.
more at the link http://www.tcpalm.com/tcp/florida_news/article/0,2820,TCP_24432_5034057,00.html
Marthatex
10-01-2006, 01:53 PM
If Hastert covered it up, then he should resign too.
Seems he has a "fuzzy" memory about being told about it.
This is going to get interesting. Can you imagine not remembering something like that being brought up in your office?
Pedro
10-01-2006, 02:45 PM
Memory is a matter of timing, mid-term election with 25 seat in dispute= bad memory.
But this is a very sad day for the house. We should let the investigation proceed and then those with legal and/or political responsibility pay for it.
AlwaysShocked
10-01-2006, 03:11 PM
It is obvious that Hastert had to decide whether or not to keep lying about what he knew and when he knew it. He has now apparently decided to tell the truth. It will be interesting to see what this newfound truthfulness does to his political career.
I agree that anyone who knew about this pedophile and his actions, then did nothing about it and even kept him on the committee deserves to lose their position also.
Details
10-01-2006, 04:08 PM
Seems he has a "fuzzy" memory about being told about it.
This is going to get interesting. Can you imagine not remembering something like that being brought up in your office?I can imagine that being true in one, and only one case. If you routinely are told about, and handle issues (oh, btw, Rep A is sending sexually explicit messages to an underage, and Reb B is having an affair with one who let him in return for not being fired, and Rep C is taking bribes, oh, and Rep D went and sent another message to their underage page too!) like that. I'd prefer not to think that is true.
Details
10-01-2006, 04:11 PM
If that were true, every addicted person would just quit drinking and smoking TOMORROW. Nothing to it.
Ohh, this is bad, I'm hurting my family, think I'll just quit.
In reality it's more like: YOU'RE GETTING A DIVORCE IF YOU DON't QUIT
Or, YOU'RE LOSING YOUR JOB PRONTO
Or, YOU'RE GOING TO DIE SOON IF YOU DON'T QUIT
You can't tell me it doesn't often take the riot act or tough love to get people into treatment. The one who goes on his own is certainly to be commended.
After the addiction sets in, we are controlled by the "addiction talking to us"; and I have had experience with it in my family as well, as well as a brother-in-law who is a psychiatrist and treats addictions.
I definitely believe in personal responsibility also; and hopefully in most of us, that keeps us from getting too deep into a bad habit or addiction to begin with.
Also I think women tend to go for help and get out of their addictions more easily than men do; I think that is proven in the research.I don't know which is true - but it sounds to me like both concepts have the same response to someone with an addiction - tough love. Whether you believe they are able to control their behavior, so you don't give an inch, or you know that the addiction is controlling them and they won't stop until rock bottom, so you don't give an inch - seems both concepts work out to the same result.
Shadow205
10-01-2006, 05:10 PM
WASHINGTON — Sexually explicit messages from former Rep. Mark Foley to one former congressional page might be just the tip of the iceberg, the leader of an alumni association for former congressional pages told Scripps Howard News Service on Saturday.
While Foley resigned this week after published reports of "friendly" e-mails to one 16-year-old male page and the pending broadcast of more sexually explicit instant messages, similar graphic messages from him were received by at least three other teenage boys who once worked in the page program, said Matthew Loraditch, a Maryland college senior who runs the U.S. House Page Alumni Association's Internet message board.
I've known about them (messages) for several years now," he said Saturday.
"It was more like, 'Hey, look at this,' " said Loraditch, 21, who served in the page program in the 2001-02 session. "I don't think the people in question felt that uncomfortable. It was more, 'Ooh, look at that creepy guy.'
"It was definitely crossing-the-line stuff. The instant message stuff, and stuff I've seen and heard about, definitely couldn't be misconstrued" as merely "friendly" or innocent, Loraditch said.
Loraditch said during his time on Capitol Hill, Foley was one of the members of Congress who expressed what appeared to be a sincere interest in the young pages, often visiting the areas where they congregate in the corner of the House of Representatives chamber to chat or offer stories and advice.
Loraditch said he and other pages viewed Foley as gregarious and "flaky" at the time, and that he offered several of them, not including Loraditch, his personal e-mail when they were graduating from the program and saying goodbyes. After Loraditch returned to Maryland and began attending college at Towson University, several male former pages told him they had received Internet messages that were similar to the graphic messages first reported by ABC News last week.
more at the link http://www.tcpalm.com/tcp/florida_news/article/0,2820,TCP_24432_5034317,00.html
I don't know which is true - but it sounds to me like both concepts have the same response to someone with an addiction - tough love. Whether you believe they are able to control their behavior, so you don't give an inch, or you know that the addiction is controlling them and they won't stop until rock bottom, so you don't give an inch - seems both concepts work out to the same result.
The difference with these two concepts is tough love ( as I see it refered to here ) puts the responsibility of making the person stop the addictive behavior on another person. I believe that behavior lies soley within the individual. I think tough love is great because it sets up boundries for people and alows people not to end up as enablers. I know addiction is very touch. I unfortunitly, have many of the same mental health issues as my father which led him down the road to addiction. I have not become an addict, Instead I deal with my issues and feel I have a responsibility to my family, society and to myself to be the best functioning person I can be. This conversation is getting away from the issue of the thread and I apologize for that. I just think a grown man who can function in a political position as he did has no excuse for his pedafhile behaviors other then he wanted to behave that way. Addiction in this situation is a cop out in my opinion.
mjak
BarnGoddess
10-01-2006, 06:25 PM
I just posted in the PP about this subject. My oldest son served as a page for our Florida Congressman, Bill Lehman, back in the early 80's as a senior in high school. I am not happy about hearing a Congressman was exploiting a page. His resignation was overdue. What goes on in our Congress is definetly not exclusive to one political pary or the other. For Democratic leaders to immediately attempt to politicize this tragic situation is contemptible.
Briefly, as I posted at length in the Political Pavillion, my son attended a party hosted by the aides of a very well known Democrat Senator. There he learned not to mix beer and hard liquor and also learned the effects of marajuana.
I also did computer input for campaign mailing lists when we lived in DC. Temporarily I was paid with numerous pay checks from the US Treasury. In order to have you, as taxpayers, pay for my work, I was sworn in numerous times as an "aide", on the payroll of a Senator or Congressman. There was always room in the budget for help that was not used up. It wasn't exclusive to a particular political party. Democrats and Republicans equally employed this little "loophole" for getting voter lists turned into lists for campaign mailings.
Sit back, and think this out.
southcitymom
10-01-2006, 06:25 PM
The difference with these two concepts is tough love ( as I see it refered to here ) puts the responsibility of making the person stop the addictive behavior on another person. I believe that behavior lies soley within the individual. I think tough love is great because it sets up boundries for people and alows people not to end up as enablers. I know addiction is very touch. I unfortunitly, have many of the same mental health issues as my father which led him down the road to addiction. I have not become an addict, Instead I deal with my issues and feel I have a responsibility to my family, society and to myself to be the best functioning person I can be. This conversation is getting away from the issue of the thread and I apologize for that. I just think a grown man who can function in a political position as he did has no excuse for his pedafhile behaviors other then he wanted to behave that way. Addiction in this situation is a cop out in my opinion.
mjak
One of my best friend's husband is a recovering sex addict. There's a place in his fellowship's literature that states "we are not responsible for our addiction, but we are responsible for our recovery." Addiction is never an excuse for the things people do, but it is very often a precipitating factor.
I have no idea if this congressman is a sex addict, but it wouldn't be surprising if he is.
Pedophelia is a sexual orientation - that's different from sex addiction. I know of no way to change a person's sexual orientation. If a person is a pedophile and makes the decision not to act on it or to only act on it in fantasy, they are sentencing themselves to a pretty solitary sex life. I'm not opposed to that - I think it's much better than the alternative. But I doubt the average human being is capable of denying himself social sexual contact for very long.
LovelyPigeon
10-01-2006, 07:58 PM
Eeek! I read one of the IM's between Foley and a former page. If others in congress knew the content of messages from Foley to young pages, each and every one of those persons should be removed from their elected positions if they kept Foley's behavior secret and from being investigated.
The Republicans (I'm a Democrat) have their share of scandals to deal with this year and especially this fall, and Foley may turn out to be the most salacious of their political problems.
Pedro
10-01-2006, 08:27 PM
For Democratic leaders to immediately attempt to politicize this tragic situation is contemptible.
Yeah, they are impeaching a President for getting oral sex from a consenting adult.
This is the GOP mess, don' try to put it in the democrats.
Pedro
10-01-2006, 08:29 PM
Eeek! I read one of the IM's between Foley and a former page. If others in congress knew the content of messages from Foley to young pages, each and every one of those persons should be removed from their elected positions if they kept Foley's behavior secret and from being investigated.
The Republicans (I'm a Democrat) have their share of scandals to deal with this year and especially this fall, and Foley may turn out to be the most salacious of their political problems.
That's right, the GOP is trying to blame the democrats for seeking accountability.
Next they'll blame Clinton!
Pedro
10-01-2006, 08:30 PM
Add the following to the timeline:
Tom Reynolds's personal PAC, TOMPAC, wrote Foley a check for $5,000 on May 10, 2006.
On July 27, 2006, the NRCC, chaired by Tom Reynolds, accepted a $100,000 donations from Foley.
The donations are not illegal. What they represent is further info that will cloud the underlying and most important issue. FOLEY IS A PREDATOR and he was protected by House leadership.
Pedro
10-01-2006, 08:32 PM
Partisan Hack Statements Trying to Defend the Indefensible:
First nominee, Britt Hume:
It is very serious misbehavior on the part of Congressman Foley, whether it stems from arrogance or just weakness of the human flesh is another question. It’s probably worth noting that there’s a difference between the two parties on these issues. Inappropriate behavior towards subordinates didn’t cost Gerry Studds his Democratic seat in Massachussetts, nor Barney Frank his. Nor did inappropriate behavior toward a subordinate even cost Bill Clinton his standing within the Democratic Party, even though indirectly he was impeached for it. Mark Foley found out about this, was found out to have done this, and he’s out of office and in total disgrace in his party.
Second nominee, Newt Gingrich:
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.
Republican leaders seem to believe that consensual sex among adults can justify pedophilia.
HeartofTexas
10-01-2006, 08:55 PM
Tom Reynolds's personal PAC, TOMPAC, wrote Foley a check for $5,000 on May 10, 2006.
On July 27, 2006, the NRCC, chaired by Tom Reynolds, accepted a $100,000 donations from Foley.
Compare the above with this:
Reynolds, chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, became the second senior House Republican to say that Hastert has known of Foley's contacts for months, prompting Democratic attacks about the GOP leadership's inaction. Foley abruptly resigned Friday.
Only after Reynolds's statement did Hastert concede that he may have been notified of some of the questionable activities of Foley, 52, who had co-chaired the House caucus on missing and exploited children. Hastert said, however, that he knew nothing of the sexually explicit instant messages that became public Friday.
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/1001foley1001.html
So, if Reynolds knew of Foley's actions for MONTHS, then exactly why did he accept $100,000.00 from Foley? Did Foley pay Reynolds the money to keep him quiet? Hush money?
They're all wading in this so deep that I'll be surprised if any of them have clean hands when this is over.
Pedro
10-01-2006, 09:03 PM
Do not forget: It's all Clinton's fault... :D
HeartofTexas
10-01-2006, 09:15 PM
Speaking of Clinton, here's a quote from Mark Foley in 1998 re Clinton:
Republicans were aghast at Clinton's behavior, with many saying it showed he had lied and abused his power.
"It's vile," said Rep. Mark Foley, R-West Palm Beach. "It's more sad than anything else, to see someone with such potential throw it all down the drain because of a sexual addiction."
Those are the kind of words that could bite a guy in the butt!
http://www.sptimes.com/Worldandnation/91298/Congress_sees_through.html
Pedro
10-01-2006, 09:51 PM
Yep, that is the case.
HeartofTexas
10-01-2006, 10:12 PM
There are reportedly 4 stories re Foley on the front page of the New York Times tomorrow. This may get interesting.
Pedro
10-01-2006, 10:24 PM
Yes, I've heard that also. Plus the Post getting ready for a 3 column work on the issue.
BarnGoddess
10-01-2006, 10:34 PM
Do not forget: It's all Clinton's fault... :D
You have several posts bringing up Clinton. Is there a reason for this? To my knowledge no one is blaming either President Bush or former President Clinton for an illegal or possibly criminal act of a Congressman.
SadieMae
10-01-2006, 10:43 PM
In every other case about internet sexual predators, their computer is seized. I have heard nothing of Foley's computers being seized. Why is that? They also know his messages to the former page were through his AOL account.
Marthatex
10-02-2006, 12:02 AM
Speaking of Clinton, here's a quote from Mark Foley in 1998 re Clinton:
Those are the kind of words that could bite a guy in the butt!
http://www.sptimes.com/Worldandnation/91298/Congress_sees_through.html
Kind of like the pot calling the kettle black?
If Reynolds accepted $100,000 from Foley, and looking at the time frame; we could be smelling quite a rat.
Details
10-02-2006, 04:12 AM
Some good stuff:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15096062/
Hasturt is asking for an investigation not only into what Foley did, but who knew, when, and what they did with that knowledge. Sounds like the right scope. He's also given a reasonable explanation of his knowledge, but we'll see if the investigation is througough, and if it finds that to be true.
HeartofTexas
10-02-2006, 09:03 AM
It's amazing that Hastert could say with a straight face that he didn't know anything until recently:
GOP Staff Warned Pages About Foley in 2001
A Republican staff member warned congressional pages five years ago to watch out for Congressman Mark Foley, according to a former page.
(snip)
Loraditch, the president of the Page Alumni Association, said the pages were told "don't get too wrapped up in him being too nice to you and all that kind of stuff."
(snip)
Loraditch says that some of the pages who "interacted" with Foley were hesitant to report his behavior because "members of Congress, they've got the power." Many of the pages were hoping for careers in politics and feared Foley might seek retribution.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/10/gop_staff_warne.html
southcitymom
10-02-2006, 09:10 AM
Speaking of Clinton, here's a quote from Mark Foley in 1998 re Clinton:
Those are the kind of words that could bite a guy in the butt!
http://www.sptimes.com/Worldandnation/91298/Congress_sees_through.html
LOL! Thanks for posting this. I love when hypocrites are caught in print!
HeartofTexas
10-02-2006, 09:11 AM
WASHINGTON -- A former House page said Sunday that in 2003 he saw sexually suggestive e-mails that Rep. Mark Foley had sent to another former page.
Patrick McDonald, 21, now a senior at Ohio State University, said he eventually learned of "three or four" pages from his 2001-2002 class who were sent such messages.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0610020156oct02,1,1659039.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed
I bet we are just seeing the tip of the iceberg for how long Foley has been doing this.
And amazingly, Foley was brazen enough to do it all under his own initials and the year he was born (maf54).
But, of course, Foley is now going to enter alcohol rehab, so I feel certain that all of his problems will be cured in just a matter of weeks. As if alcohol is the answer to why a grown man decided it was okay to proposition not only under-age boys, but also why it was okay to proposition people basically in his employ.
Paladin
10-02-2006, 10:08 AM
Why is it every time a politician screws up they try to blame it on alcoholism? Checking yourself into rehab has to be one of the oldest tricks in the book.
I sent inappropriate emails to underage boys because of alcoholism? Yeah...right.
This guy must have not taken email ettiquette 101...and that is...don't post in an email what you wouldn't post on a bulletin board for everyone else to see. They are not secure, and can easily be used against you.
Marthatex
10-02-2006, 01:55 PM
Oh, so alcohol made him do that? Kind of like it made Mel Gibson antisemitic?
I'm afraid his problems may be deep-seated and exacerbated by alcohol. Actually alcohol usually takes your sex drive away....
So the 12 step program will help you not be interested in young kids....I don't know about that.
Remember just recently there was a guy in Homeland Security who just resigned; he was busted for the same thing. Can't remember his name.
SadieMae
10-02-2006, 03:30 PM
I'm watching FOX news and I am :furious: .
The White House Press Secretary referred to Foley's emals to the pages as: "naughty emails". Then he went back to correct himself to say they were more than that. What is wrong with people? To me a "naughty email" is sending an off color joke my friends.
Pedro
10-02-2006, 04:20 PM
You have several posts bringing up Clinton. Is there a reason for this? To my knowledge no one is blaming either President Bush or former President Clinton for an illegal or possibly criminal act of a Congressman.
Yes, they brought Clinton up. Also it's a joke to "blame Clinton" for everything because they often do.
Pedro
10-02-2006, 04:22 PM
Why is it every time a politician screws up they try to blame it on alcoholism? Checking yourself into rehab has to be one of the oldest tricks in the book.
I sent inappropriate emails to underage boys because of alcoholism? Yeah...right.
This guy must have not taken email ettiquette 101...and that is...don't post in an email what you wouldn't post on a bulletin board for everyone else to see. They are not secure, and can easily be used against you.
Right on the spot, alcoholism is a different problem.
Pepper
10-02-2006, 04:46 PM
Perhaps checking into rehab is a way to keep the press away during his "recovery." Seems like alot of celebs do this when they are caught in a compromising position. It's a tactic folks!
SadieMae
10-02-2006, 05:11 PM
Perhaps checking into rehab is a way to keep the press away during his "recovery." Seems like alot of celebs do this when they are caught in a compromising position. It's a tactic folks!
It's on CNN now. Seems nobody knew Foley had an alcohol problem, not even his brother-in-law or other staffers...:waitasec:
Mabel
10-02-2006, 05:15 PM
Perhaps checking into rehab is a way to keep the press away during his "recovery." Seems like alot of celebs do this when they are caught in a compromising position. It's a tactic folks!
Many of the celebs go into rehab when they get in trouble with the law in hopes that the judge will let it go at that. And usually the judges do. Not so with us real folks.
Marthatex
10-02-2006, 05:58 PM
I'm watching FOX news and I am :furious: .
The White House Press Secretary referred to Foley's emals to the pages as: "naughty emails". Then he went back to correct himself to say they were more than that. What is wrong with people? To me a "naughty email" is sending an off color joke my friends.
I guess he'll get sticks in his stocking for Xmas. :o
HeartofTexas
10-02-2006, 11:53 PM
An Op-Ed piece in the Washington Times calls for the resignation of Dennis Hastert.
House Speaker Dennis Hastert must do the only right thing, and resign his speakership at once. Either he was grossly negligent for not taking the red flags fully into account and ordering a swift investigation, for not even remembering the order of events leading up to last week's revelations -- or he deliberately looked the other way in hopes that a brewing scandal would simply blow away. He gave phony answers Friday to the old and ever-relevant questions of what did he know and when did he know it? Mr. Hastert has forfeited the confidence of the public and his party, and he cannot preside over the necessary coming investigation, an investigation that must examine his own inept performance.
I couldn't agree more. Hastert was derelict in his responsibilities in overlooking the actions of Mark Foley who was Chairman of the Caucus for Missing and Exploited Children. From start to finish, this is a travesty of justice.
http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20061002-102008-9058r.htm
HeartofTexas
10-03-2006, 12:04 AM
Wasn't it just last night we were discussing what was in it for Tom Reynolds, who had accepted a $100,000.00 donation from Foley? Well....
Monday, October 02, 2006
BREAKING: Cong. Tom Reynolds' (R-NY) chief of staff tried to get ABC to cover-up evidence of Foley predatory sex chat (http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/10/breaking-cong-tom-reynolds-r-ny-chief.html) </B>
by John in DC - 10/02/2006 07:50:00 PM
It's confirmed. Congressman Tom Reynolds' (R-NY) chief of staff, Kirk Fordham, tried to broker a secret deal last Friday to get ABC News to cover up the worst part of the Foley child predator scandal, the lurid five-plus-page instant message chat in which Foley asked a child to measure his penis and then led the child into a detailed discussion of masturbatory techniques.
Howie Kurtz in the Washington Post wrote about this in this morning's Washington Post (http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/10/gop-tried-to-cover-up-worst-of-foley.html), though at the time Kurtz didn't name names - he simply referred to the deal-maker as a "former chief of staff" to Mark Foley. It's subsequently been confirmed to me, by Kurtz, that the individual who reportedly tried to broker the cover-up deal was Congressman Reynolds' own chief of staff (and former Foley chief of staff), Kirk Fordham. Here is what Kurtz wrote:
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.(As noted above, I have confirmed that the guy offering the deal was Fordham.) Yes, God forbid Congressman Reynolds let the public know the truth. But we're to believe that he was interested in the truth when he first found out about Foley's creepy emails months ago. Right.
Congressman Reynolds, you'll recall, is the head of the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), the congressional body in charge of helping House republicans get re-elected. Reynolds had been notified about Foley's page-baiting months ago, yet wants us to believe he did everything he could and that he's not responsible for the sexual predator getting an easy ride, for his being permitted to remain in congress, permitted to remain the chair of the House caucus on missing and exploited children, and being permitted to remain in the House Republican leadership.
http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/10/breaking-cong-tom-reynolds-r-ny-chief.html
Paladin
10-03-2006, 09:35 AM
It's on CNN now. Seems nobody knew Foley had an alcohol problem, not even his brother-in-law or other staffers...:waitasec:
Bingo!
I live in NY...I had to chuckle yesterday as the local news just got finished interviewing/grilling Rep. Tom Reynolds (he supposedly knew about the e-mails and didn't do much other than tell the Speaker of the House) ... everyone thinks this is going to hurt his chance at re-election. Immediately following this interview with him came a commercial to re-elect...guess who....Tom Reynolds!
Marthatex
10-03-2006, 09:44 AM
Wasn't it just last night we were discussing what was in it for Tom Reynolds, who had accepted a $100,000.00 donation from Foley? Well....
http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/10/breaking-cong-tom-reynolds-r-ny-chief.html
How many ways are they going to keep trying to spin it -
coverup. :behindbar
AlwaysShocked
10-03-2006, 10:34 AM
Foley's lawyer states he is "absolutely not a pedophile".
Right. He just likes to exchange instant messages directing a teenage boy to measure his penis while he is fondling his own "one-eyed snake"!
And the boy's answer to the request for a "measurement" was that he had already done that before, indicating at least one prior "conversation" with this "non-pedophile".
I think the most disturbing thing I am seeing here, beyond the acts themselves and beyond the obvious attempts at coverup, is the lack of recognition of this as CRIMINAL behavior!
Are these people all nuts? This is NOT a guy who was caught messing around with his adult secretary - this is a man who was obviously preying on teenage boys, forgodsake!
Dennis Hastert needs to take off his blinders and he better do it soon. Because the attitude we are seeing on the part of those who knew SOMETHING was going on is just disgusting, IMO.
kayceebee
10-03-2006, 05:13 PM
What could this be...hhmmmmm??
FOLEY BOMBSHELL COMING ... FORMER CONGRESSMAN'S ATTORNEY TO HOLD NEWS CONFERENCE IN WEST PALM BEACH, FLA.
http://abcnews.go.com/
LovelyPigeon
10-03-2006, 05:33 PM
New Foley Instant Messages; Had Internet Sex While Awaiting House Vote
October 03, 2006 1:22 PM
Brian Ross and Maddy Sauer Report:
Former Congressman Mark Foley (R-FL) interrupted a vote on the floor of the House in 2003 to engage in Internet sex with a high school student who had served as a congressional page, according to new Internet instant messages provided to ABC News by former pages.
ABC News now has obtained 52 separate instant message exchanges, which former pages say were sent by Foley, using the screen name Maf54, to two different boys under the age of 18.
Maf54: I miss you
Teen: ya me too
Maf54: we are still voting
Maf54: you miss me too
The exchange continues in which Foley and the teen both appear to describe having sexual orgasms.
Maf54: ok..i better go vote..did you know you would have this effect on me
Teen: lol I guessed
Teen: ya go vote…I don't want to keep you from doing our job
Maf54: can I have a good kiss goodnight
Teen: :-*
Teen: <kiss>
(more at link: )
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/10/new_foley_insta.html
SadieMae
10-03-2006, 05:42 PM
New Foley Instant Messages; Had Internet Sex While Awaiting House Vote
October 03, 2006 1:22 PM
Brian Ross and Maddy Sauer Report:
Former Congressman Mark Foley (R-FL) interrupted a vote on the floor of the House in 2003 to engage in Internet sex with a high school student who had served as a congressional page, according to new Internet instant messages provided to ABC News by former pages.
ABC News now has obtained 52 separate instant message exchanges, which former pages say were sent by Foley, using the screen name Maf54, to two different boys under the age of 18.
Maf54: I miss you
Teen: ya me too
Maf54: we are still voting
Maf54: you miss me too
The exchange continues in which Foley and the teen both appear to describe having sexual orgasms.
Maf54: ok..i better go vote..did you know you would have this effect on me
Teen: lol I guessed
Teen: ya go vote…I don't want to keep you from doing our job
Maf54: can I have a good kiss goodnight
Teen: :-*
Teen: <kiss>
(more at link: )
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/10/new_foley_insta.html
I read this one and the other one. Nasty, nasty!!!! I just still cannot believe not one person on the HIll who knew of his behavior spoke up!!!
BarnGoddess
10-03-2006, 05:46 PM
Yes, they brought Clinton up. Also it's a joke to "blame Clinton" for everything because they often do.
Pedro, you seem to be riding a one trick pony. I am definitely not minimizing Foley's totally unacceptable behavior. Our elected officials have a tendency to believe themselves totally above the law. They do need to be held accountable for their actions.
Clinton did pardon Mel Reynoldsl. If you remember he had sex with a sixteen year old and was also convicted of spending violations.
Barney Frank lived with a male prostitute who was running a sex for hire business right out of their apartment. He did get censured, but is now a top ranking congressman.
Gerry Studds was caught having sex with a 16 year old male. He refused to resign and continued to serve.
I believe an interviewee on ABC told Charlie Gibson, there's more to come out on others. But, if they're Democrats, then you can bet your bottom dollar you won't hear about them untill after November 7.
Disgusting as Foley is, there are others out there that are just as bad. Oh, BTW, the above named Congressmen are/were Democrats.
SadieMae
10-03-2006, 06:04 PM
I am watching the press conference. I Just CAN'T believe this *****. Now he's saying Mark Foley said he was abused from 13-15 by a priest. Ummmmm....sounds real familiar. Abuse excuse. But in the next sentence he's saying he's not making excuses for his behavior? :confused:
kayceebee
10-03-2006, 06:07 PM
Oh not this.....now his lawyer is stating he was abused as a child!
kayceebee
10-03-2006, 06:10 PM
Former Congressman Mark Foley Was Molested By A Clergyman As A Teenager And Is Gay, According To His Attorney
Marthatex
10-03-2006, 06:23 PM
Former Congressman Mark Foley Was Molested By A Clergyman As A Teenager And Is Gay, According To His Attorney
Yeah, I just saw that on CNN breaking news.
It's getting too bizarre for words. So did he seek or get any help at the time, or is this a long lost deep, dark secret from the past????
As the world turns.......tune in for tomorrow's show......
Or is it "True Confessions"?
Pedro, you seem to be riding a one trick pony. I am definitely not minimizing Foley's totally unacceptable behavior. Our elected officials have a tendency to believe themselves totally above the law. They do need to be held accountable for their actions.
Clinton did pardon Mel Reynoldsl. If you remember he had sex with a sixteen year old and was also convicted of spending violations.
Barney Frank lived with a male prostitute who was running a sex for hire business right out of their apartment. He did get censured, but is now a top ranking congressman.
Gerry Studds was caught having sex with a 16 year old male. He refused to resign and continued to serve.
I believe an interviewee on ABC told Charlie Gibson, there's more to come out on others. But, if they're Democrats, then you can bet your bottom dollar you won't hear about them untill after November 7.
Disgusting as Foley is, there are others out there that are just as bad. Oh, BTW, the above named Congressmen are/were Democrats.
BG, I don't know if the "But, if they're Democrats..." part is you speaking or the interviewee. But either way, puh-leeze! If the media weren't perfectly willing to report on the failings of Democrats, you wouldn't have your litany of Dem scandals to recite here.
Nonetheless, if you want to know why Republican scandals are different than Democratic ones, it's because Republican candidates have for some time now claimed to own the moral highroad. Thus, they have farther to fall and it's more satisfying when they do.
Marthatex
10-03-2006, 07:14 PM
If they're Democrats, they'll be whisked out faster than you can say, "The Devil made me do it".
LovelyPigeon
10-03-2006, 07:27 PM
Not the devil, but the clergy made him do it!
Marthatex
10-03-2006, 07:34 PM
Not the devil, but the clergy made him do it!
Oh, I thought it was alcohol.
Looks like he also may have a psoriasis, or dry skin problem. (Remember the heartbreak of psoriasis?)
Mid-life crisis?
That'll do it!
LovelyPigeon
10-03-2006, 07:39 PM
I sure do remember the 'heartbreak of psoriasis' commercials LOL
I hope the 12-step program will help Foley deal with his responsibility for his problems in place of blaming others (or skin conditions!). Sometimes a 30-day program can work wonders; sometimes not.
mysteriew
10-03-2006, 07:44 PM
Does anyone know what the age of consent is in Washington?
My local news station ran a poll yesterday asking if viewers thought that anyone who knew about the abuse previously should have action taken against them. 13% said no. 87% said yes.
Personally, I think that if they are going to operate a page program, then the age of consent should be 18 years old. And yes, anyone who knew and did not report should be made to step down.
Masterj
10-03-2006, 08:14 PM
There are so many angry thoughts going through my head right now that I don't know where to start. First off, if Foley was molested as a child, I am very sorry he had to endure that. However, that does not excuse his disgusting actions. He clearly knew right from wrong and CHOSE to do this anyway. It infuriates me when people blame their past for their current circumstances. There are millions of us out there who have experienced sexual abuse, and not all of us are out there abusing someone else.
Also, about him now coming out of the closet. Clearly they are trying to spin this like oh the poor guy was abused, became conflicted with his sexuality, and was forced to live a life of secrets and pain. They are trying to make it look like he is a normal gay man with an affection of young men. That is such BS! The man was in a position of power and PREYED upon impressionable boys. There is a big difference between being gay and being a pedophile and I believe he is a pedophile. Makes me sick to my stomach. Anyone who knew about this and did nothing should be held accountable.
HeartofTexas
10-03-2006, 08:45 PM
I couldn't agree more, MasterJ. Anyone who knew anything about this over the years and who did nothing has shown his own lack of morals and conscience. OTOH, it's my impression that everyone in Washington seems to have something to hide and if all of them started telling the truth at this point, Washington would fall like a house of cards. Not a totally bad idea, IMO, but I doubt it's going to happen. I think power and money corrupt, and sex seems to be their favorite venue for corruption.
j2mirish
10-03-2006, 09:24 PM
Former Congressman Mark Foley Was Molested By A Clergyman As A Teenager And Is Gay, According To His Attorney
i guess that makes it ok--:razz: must be why he was----oh never mind---this just makes me fricking nuts:sick: :sick: :sick:
not repling to you kcb....just the post ! and i just read he was also abused:bang:
Pedro
10-03-2006, 10:18 PM
Pedro, you seem to be riding a one trick pony. I am definitely not minimizing Foley's totally unacceptable behavior. Our elected officials have a tendency to believe themselves totally above the law. They do need to be held accountable for their actions....
When was the last time the democratic leadership cover up for a sexual predator who prey on children?
So much for the party of family values, keep digging!
Pedro
10-03-2006, 10:21 PM
What about today's vote where many republicans voted in favor of protecting child predators? They voted against an investigation!
Marthatex
10-03-2006, 10:28 PM
John Walsh had some really good statements about Foley tonight on Larry King.
"These people will risk everything for this compulsion...and sometimes they are so narcissistic or sociopathic they rationalize they aren't really doing anything wrong..." Lead double lives very smoothly....
If you look at the film clips of Foley he looks very confident and charismatic. The pages describe him as very affable and "engaging".
It's just plain scary; these people (Scott Peterson types, predators) are in our midst.
Straitfan
10-04-2006, 12:12 AM
There are so many angry thoughts going through my head right now that I don't know where to start. First off, if Foley was molested as a child, I am very sorry he had to endure that. However, that does not excuse his disgusting actions. He clearly knew right from wrong and CHOSE to do this anyway. It infuriates me when people blame their past for their current circumstances. There are millions of us out there who have experienced sexual abuse, and not all of us are out there abusing someone else.
Also, about him now coming out of the closet. Clearly they are trying to spin this like oh the poor guy was abused, became conflicted with his sexuality, and was forced to live a life of secrets and pain. They are trying to make it look like he is a normal gay man with an affection of young men. That is such BS! The man was in a position of power and PREYED upon impressionable boys. There is a big difference between being gay and being a pedophile and I believe he is a pedophile. Makes me sick to my stomach. Anyone who knew about this and did nothing should be held accountable.
Couldnt agree more with your comment more, Masterj.. This overall has nothing to do with politics.. He is a pedophile and that is the bottom line, doesn't matter what he does during the day, they are out there everywhere, unfortunately..:mad:
BarnGoddess
10-04-2006, 12:21 AM
BG, I don't know if the "But, if they're Democrats..." part is you speaking or the interviewee. But either way, puh-leeze! If the media weren't perfectly willing to report on the failings of Democrats, you wouldn't have your litany of Dem scandals to recite here.
Nonetheless, if you want to know why Republican scandals are different than Democratic ones, it's because Republican candidates have for some time now claimed to own the moral highroad. Thus, they have farther to fall and it's more satisfying when they do.
Nova, I don't disagree with you at all. I'm one of those middle of the road Republicans, but the vile of some posters need to be checked. We must put this scandal in prospective. My son was a page to Congressman Lehman in the early 80's. I know he attended a party put on by the aides of a rather famous Senator from Mass. (still in office) where he learned that beer and whisky don't mix and his one experience with the pot supplied was something he never repeated. I might just give him a call and see what else he can tell me. For some reason our elected officials seem to think they can get away with whatever they want. Power obviously corrupts, regardless of the party.
It seems that in the past, Democrats in deep doo-doo were caught during a Democrat majority and really didn't get much more than a slap. Foley got caught on the last day before the recess. Just in time for elections.
I'm about ready to say that we totally disband Congress and elect all new representatives. Fresh start.......no one allowed to run for re-election.
BarnGoddess
10-04-2006, 12:33 AM
When was the last time the democratic leadership cover up for a sexual predator who prey on children?
So much for the party of family values, keep digging!
If 16 and 17 are children, then all of my examples, other than Barney Frank were children....
It's my understanding that the age of consent in the District of Columbia is 16.
Pedro, I am not an extremist. I am a realist. Not all Republicans are as right wing as you may want to believe. Extreme religion of any kind disgusts me. Every American has the responsibility to teach their children values and morals. You don't have to be an Evangelical Christian to do that. I would hope liberal Democrats hold the same values as I do, and as I have passed on to my sons.
Having lived in DC for 17 years, I understand the day to day workings of our government. That makes my a total cynic. In Washington, it's politics as usual.
Marthatex
10-04-2006, 12:46 AM
I don't think the Democrats should try to over-politicize it, but I sure don't think pot smoking and "corruption" is on the same plane as a "predator in our midst", targeting minors. Those e-mails are very explicit; if people knew about this stuff and covered or ignored, I think there should be repercussion. Why would they vote to not have an investigation if there was nothing to hide?
Straitfan
10-04-2006, 01:05 AM
Why do you even make this about politics?!!? It is everywhere, everyday around everyone's children... Your's, mine, etc... Why do we continue to chargue the politics, hey... democratics/republics?? Does it really matter what "quote side" of the fence he is on? Only difference between the 2 parties, is republic's will admit to what was done..but, wrong is wrong is wrong..The sad thing is, he is everyone.. ie, teacher, store clerk, etc.. What in the world does one being a pedifle (cant sp sorry) dont wont to know how to spell) have to do with politics..it is on our streets everywhere, and if you think otherwise well, God Bless your children.
mysteriew
10-04-2006, 02:08 AM
I agree this should supercede politics. And it is borderline on the pedo area. But it goes beyond even that. The pages go there, under the protection of our government via the page program. They are supposed to be teaching them, enlightening them, and introducing them to how our country is run. The parents who allowed their children to go, were trusting in their reps to keep their children safe. Using them as their party buddies or a new crop of harem possibilities is wrong.
So whether it is giving parties with alcohol and pot, or whether it is the reps hitting on the kids for sexual reasons- the persons who did it, as well as the persons who knew and allowed it to continue- are all guilty of betraying the trust of the people. It doesn't matter if they are republican or democrat, conservative or liberal, right or left or however they happen to describe themselves. They betrayed one of the most sacred trusts we have- to protect the children.
BTW, it may not be a big crime, but I believe that giving alcohol to minors is against the law, not to mention pot. Is there a law in Washington for contributing to the delinquency of a minor?
close_enough
10-04-2006, 07:00 AM
man o' man, this just keeps getting worse, from everything i saw on TV last night.....i wouldn't be surprised if Foley just shoots himself in the head....
those emails to a kid, during a vote, are just sickening, IMO.....
HeartofTexas
10-04-2006, 09:47 AM
I disagree... this has to include talk re politics. This man was a representative of the people. We voted on him. Our taxes pay his salary. Not only should we expect him to go to Washington to serve the people, but we should also expect him to protect the best interests of his constituents. And I'm pretty sure that doesn't include talking like pond scum to minors or propositioning them for dates. It also doesn't include holding up votes in Congress while you plan your next dalliance with a minor.
HeartofTexas
10-04-2006, 10:02 AM
Sounds like there may be more to come:
The daily disclosures about Foley's salacious Internet exchanges with former teenage congressional pages have GOP lawmakers and conservative activists fearing the foibles of other politicians may be exposed.
"People are very, very concerned," Rep. Ray LaHood, R-Ill., said Tuesday night. "I think there are going to be more disclosures."
"We have heard rumors that other, similar activity has occurred involving additional congressmen and will be released prior to the November elections," said the Arlington Group, a coalition of 70 pro-family conservative groups.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/04/politics/main2059821.shtml
miimaa
10-04-2006, 11:21 AM
He was abused... now he's a gay alcoholic. When did he have his brain removed??? How can ANY semi-intelligent adult think this is an okay way to conduct himself? He needs to go to jail!
LovelyPigeon
10-04-2006, 01:42 PM
Cynthia Tucker of the Atlanta Constitution took on the "alcohol excuse" today:
Drunk on power, GOP wrecks the public trust
Published on: 10/04/06
Drunkenness is getting a bad name.
A couple of months ago, Mel Gibson blamed his anti-Semitic diatribe on a state of intoxication. After resigning abruptly on Friday, former U.S. Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.) released a statement saying that he was going into alcohol rehab, suggesting that his sexually explicit overtures to teenagers in e-mails and instant messages were the result of a tendency to over-imbibe.
Presumably, however, Foley was stone-cold sober when he pushed for harsher sanctions against adults who do just what he did. As co-chairman of the Congressional Missing and Exploited Children's Caucus, Foley had achieved national recognition for his efforts to protect children against sexual predators. Indeed, he was a champion of legislation that makes it a crime under some circumstances to use the Internet to entice someone under the age of 18 to engage in sexual activity.
No word yet on whether the House leadership was too drunk to expose Foley last year and force him to resign then. --->> http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/tucker/stories/2006/10/04/1004edtuck.html
Nova, I don't disagree with you at all. I'm one of those middle of the road Republicans...
I know, BG. I was just responding to one remark (which may not have been yours).
I don't think the Frank scandal is really comparable. A friend of his was using his house for illegal activity; Frank put a stop to it. Using poor judgment in choosing your friends is hardly the same as preying on teenagers.
But on the whole, I don't for a moment think Democratic legislators are any better in terms of their personal conduct.
GonzoReiter
10-04-2006, 09:00 PM
This is a developing detail, being reported on drudgereport.com :OOps! ABC screwed up, I guess. They said the IMs were with an underage page (meaning under 18). Guess what? The guy was 18 years old after all. See, ABC screwed up and failed to redact his name. Someone saw the name, and it turns out the guy is now 21, and this is 3 years after the fact.that might be a story to follow for a few days...the one quoted above that Drudge cadged off of "Wild Bill". Other than Drudge, no one else will link to it, for obvious reasons...even tho it's been posted, taken down, re-posted, offered for sale, etc. for a day or so.
Drudge has already made his bones on FoleyGate by blaming those "little beasts" house pages...so, he can hardly sink lower in my very humble opinion.
IdahoMom
10-04-2006, 09:03 PM
that might be a story to follow for a few days...the one quoted above that Drudge cadged off of "Wild Bill". Other than Drudge, no one else will link to it, for obvious reasons...even tho it's been posted, taken down, re-posted, offered for sale, etc. for a day or so.
Drudge has already made his bones on FoleyGate by blaming those "little beasts" house pages...so, he can hardly sink lower in my very humble opinion.
LOL. I deleted my post because I knew some who say it can't be true if it's on Drudge, plus I thought it would be best to let ABC or another network of that type clear the air.
LOL. I deleted my post because I knew some who say it can't be true if it's on Drudge, plus I thought it would be best to let ABC or another network of that type clear the air.
I heard this story on a talk radio program last night. The host was tying himself in knots trying to make this about ABC.
Shades of Rathergate, where CBS' errors were used to overshadow the fact that the woman who originally typed the incriminating memo re GWB's service said that the memo produced by CBS was essentially accurate, even if it was fake.
After all, Foley has already confessed publically and tried to displace blame onto alcohol and the clergy. Even if ABC did make errors, it's a little late to think those errors will clear Foley.
IdahoMom
10-05-2006, 02:59 PM
After all, Foley has already confessed publically and tried to displace blame onto alcohol and the clergy. Even if ABC did make errors, it's a little late to think those errors will clear Foley.
I'm not wanting to see him cleared- I want to see him prosecuted!:angel:
I'm not wanting to see him cleared- I want to see him prosecuted!:angel:
I'm sorry, IM. My remarks weren't addressed to you. (And I'm not saying the ABC report shouldn't be corrected.)
I was talking about the emphasis on "media errors" that some of the rightwing media prefer to actually talking about the subject.
Pedro
10-05-2006, 07:51 PM
If 16 and 17 are children, then all of my examples, other than Barney Frank were children....
It's my understanding that the age of consent in the District of Columbia is 16.
Pedro, I am not an extremist. I am a realist. Not all Republicans are as right wing as you may want to believe. Extreme religion of any kind disgusts me. Every American has the responsibility to teach their children values and morals. You don't have to be an Evangelical Christian to do that. I would hope liberal Democrats hold the same values as I do, and as I have passed on to my sons.
Having lived in DC for 17 years, I understand the day to day workings of our government. That makes my a total cynic. In Washington, it's politics as usual.
Long and interesting post, still I don't see where there is justification to protect child molesters.
Just because some democrat did it 20 or 30 years ago, we can't say it's right.
Pedro
10-05-2006, 07:54 PM
Those children are entitled to the institution for their care. There is no justification for exposing them to a child molester, even less to cover his despicable actions.
The American people does not support child predators, period.
Straitfan
10-06-2006, 04:00 AM
HeartofTexas,
Your right it has to do with politics, because he is a politican..But politics is not the issue here, he is a so called human when he is not at his job! That is not my point, child predators are out there everywhere, may be politican but could be your child's teacher... I am middle of the road when it comes to politics but tend to lean towards republic due to various issues.. What continues to amazes me though about steadfast dem's is you find it "ok" that a so called president gets bj in the whitehouse but try to beat up rep's over im's.. This doesn't make sense to me. I personally don't think either one is ok and think BOTH should pay. but then again don't understand the dem's side whole other world!!!!
Masterj
10-06-2006, 10:32 AM
HeartofTexas,
Your right it has to do with politics, because he is a politican..But politics is not the issue here, he is a so called human when he is not at his job! That is not my point, child predators are out there everywhere, may be politican but could be your child's teacher... I am middle of the road when it comes to politics but tend to lean towards republic due to various issues.. What continues to amazes me though about steadfast dem's is you find it "ok" that a so called president gets bj in the whitehouse but try to beat up rep's over im's.. This doesn't make sense to me. I personally don't think either one is ok and think BOTH should pay. but then again don't understand the dem's side whole other world!!!!
Are you KIDDING me???? You are making it sound like it is in innocent IM. He knowingly sent suggestive emails to a SIXTEEN year old boy who was working for him. He knew what he was doing was wrong and yet he continued to do it anyway, while smiling in public and letting everyone know that he would do what he could to take down sexual predators. What do you think would have happened if this boy showed any interest back? There is not a doubt in my mind that Foley would have taken this to the next level.
Bill Clinton is no saint and clearly has fidelity/women issues. However, he was involved with a willing participant who admittedly was obsessed with him, and WHO WAS OF LEGAL AGE OF CONSENT. That is the difference right there. And if you can't see that then frightens me.
Also, I don't hold any republican other than Foley and those who knew about this and covered it up, responsible. I would feel the same way if it was a Democrat who had done this.
What Masterj said. Exactly.
Pedro
10-07-2006, 07:32 AM
Also, I don't hold any republican other than Foley and those who knew about this and covered it up, responsible. I would feel the same way if it was a Democrat who had done this.
Agreed
Straitfan
10-09-2006, 11:48 PM
Masterj,
Don't think you read my entire post you quoted! I have never said sending IM's was ok, think he is a creep, makes me sick at my stomach and should pay big time cause if one is representing th country in any form (IMO) makes the matter EVEN worse. Don't think either one is ok and I don't really care "what side of the fence" they are on, wrong is wrong period!
Masterj
10-10-2006, 10:10 PM
Masterj,
Don't think you read my entire post you quoted! I have never said sending IM's was ok, think he is a creep, makes me sick at my stomach and should pay big time cause if one is representing th country in any form (IMO) makes the matter EVEN worse. Don't think either one is ok and I don't really care "what side of the fence" they are on, wrong is wrong period!
No, I read your entire post. I just took issue with you comparing Foley with Bill Clinton.
Straitfan
10-11-2006, 01:35 AM
And.... ?!?! Comparable as to their issues, no, but comparable in so far as integrity, they can be compared, I do have also a problem with a President doing that in the White House, he could have stayed at home in Arkansas!!! Am I saying his is worse or whatever, I would not try to compare in that sense. As far as being wrong, they are both extremely WRONG! Have a good one.
Marthatex
10-11-2006, 10:12 AM
1) Monica Lewinsky was after him and threw herself at him. She knew exactly what she was doing; and enjoyed it
2) She was of legal age
3) He was of legal age; he had an "affair", just like probably 50% of the male population has had
Integrity???? Just consider the difference between the above and stalking underage pages; who do not ask for it, do not want it, but are in the precarious position of not wanting to hurt their chances for recommendations or promotions, etc.
One is ABUSE, plain and simple. The other is not. Also against the law.
Masterj
10-11-2006, 10:20 AM
And.... ?!?! Comparable as to their issues, no, but comparable in so far as integrity, they can be compared, I do have also a problem with a President doing that in the White House, he could have stayed at home in Arkansas!!! Am I saying his is worse or whatever, I would not try to compare in that sense. As far as being wrong, they are both extremely WRONG! Have a good one.
"And...?!?!"
I don't think I need to elaborate further. I already responded to you previously. I take issue with you comparing even the integrity of a President who had an extramarital affair with a consenting woman of age and a Congressman who harrassed a 16 year old boy with sexually charged emails. It is clear that we have different opinions so let's just leave it at that.
jannuncutt
10-11-2006, 10:30 AM
"And...?!?!"
I don't think I need to elaborate further. I already responded to you previously. I take issue with you comparing even the integrity of a President who had an extramarital affair with a consenting woman of age and a Congressman who harrassed a 16 year old boy with sexually charged emails. It is clear that we have different opinions so let's just leave it at that. I am in total agreement with you. I really don't understand why Clinton's name keeps coming up in this Foley mess. Bill Clinton was an adulterer - Foley is a sexual predator.
HeartofTexas
10-11-2006, 10:52 AM
Bill Clinton was an adulterer - Foley is a sexual predator.
Exactly!
Pedro
10-11-2006, 11:28 AM
So much for family values, anti-gay positions and protection of decency.
* Republican racist pedophile and United States Senator Strom Thurmond
had sex with a 15-year old black girl which produced a child.(Strom has gotten a lot of ovations!)
* Republican pastor Mike Hintz, whom George W. Bush commended during the 2004 presidential campaign, surrendered to police after admitting to a sexual affair with a female juvenile.
* Republican Congressman Dan Crane had sex with a female minor working as a congressional page.
* Republican congressman and anti-gay activist Robert Bauman was
charged with having sex with a 16-year-old boy he picked up at a gay
bar.
* Republican Committee Chairman Jeffrey Patti was arrested for
distributing a video clip of a 5-year-old girl being raped.
* Republican activist Marty Glickman (a.k.a. "Republican Marty"), was
taken into custody by Florida police on four counts of unlawful sexual
activity with an underage girl and one count of delivering the drug
LSD.
* Republican legislative aide Howard L. Brooks was charged with
molesting a 12-year old boy and possession of child pornography.
* Republican Senate candidate John Hathaway was accused of having sex
with his 12-year old baby sitter and withdrew his candidacy after the
allegations were reported in the media.
* Republican preacher Stephen White, who demanded a return to
traditional values, was sentenced to jail after offering $20 to a
14-year-old boy for permission to perform oral sex on him.
* Republican talk show host Jon Matthews pleaded guilty to exposing
his genitals to an 11 year old girl.
* Republican anti-gay activist Earl "Butch" Kimmerling was sentenced
to 40 years in prison for molesting an 8-year old girl after he
attempted to stop a gay couple from adopting her.
* Republican Party leader Paul Ingram pleaded guilty to six counts of
raping his daughters and served 14 years in federal prison.
* Republican election board official Kevin Coan was sentenced to two
years probation for soliciting sex over the internet from a 14-year
old girl.
* Republican politician Andrew Buhr was charged with two counts of
first degree sodomy with a 13-year old boy.
* Republican politician Keith Westmoreland was arrested on seven
felony counts of lewd and lascivious exhibition to girls under the age
of 16 (i.e. exposing himself to children).
* Republican anti-abortion activist John Allen Burt was charged with
sexual misconduct involving a 15-year old girl.
* Republican County Councilman Keola Childs pleaded guilty to
molesting a male child.
* Republican activist John Butler was charged with criminal sexual
assault on a teenage girl.
* Republican candidate Richard Gardner admitted to molesting his two daughters.
* Republican Councilman and former Marine Jack W. Gardner was
convicted of molesting a 13-year old girl.
* Republican County Commissioner Merrill Robert Barter pleaded guilty
to unlawful sexual contact and assault on a teenage boy.
* Republican City Councilman Fred C. Smeltzer, Jr. pleaded no contest
to raping a 15 year-old girl and served 6-months in prison.
* Republican activist Parker J. Bena pleaded guilty to possession of
child pornography on his home computer and was sentenced to 30 months
in federal prison and fined $18,000.
* Republican parole board officer and former Colorado state
representative, Larry Jack Schwarz, was fired after child pornography
was found in his possession.
* Republican strategist and Citadel Military College graduate Robin
Vanderwall was convicted in Virginia on five counts of soliciting sex
from boys and girls over the internet.
* Republican city councilman Mark Harris, who is described as a "good
military man" and "church goer," was convicted of repeatedly having
sex with an 11-year-old girl and sentenced to 12 years in prison.
IdahoMom
10-11-2006, 11:45 AM
I am in total agreement with you. I really don't understand why Clinton's name keeps coming up in this Foley mess. Bill Clinton was an adulterer - Foley is a sexual predator.
What about the women that have said Clinton raped them? I don't think rape=adultery.:waitasec:
jannuncutt
10-11-2006, 12:18 PM
What about the women that have said Clinton raped them? I don't think rape=adultery.:waitasec:
Where has it been proven that he raped anyone? I don't believe that he did.
windovervocalcords
10-11-2006, 01:39 PM
Where has it been proven that he raped anyone? I don't believe that he did.
Where was the trial? Where was the conviction?
Did I miss the whole thing?
IdahoMom
10-11-2006, 07:55 PM
Where was the trial? Where was the conviction?
Did I miss the whole thing?The woman were successfully intimidated.
Let's not act coy...we all know the names, if we've followed American news in the last decade. I never said there was a trial. I never said there was a conviction. I said the 'women said they were raped'...nothing other than that.
nanandjim
10-11-2006, 07:58 PM
...Let's not act coy...we all know the names...
You should have just said, "I don't recall." That line worked very well for one married couple. :rolleyes:
Straitfan
10-11-2006, 11:01 PM
Ok here we go again, you make it about politic's , and then attempt to justify anything a Dem has done!
So, if you think what President's do is ok, guess you should think everything else is, right?, as long as they are a dem. Wrong is wrong is wrong, period... What Foley is accused of is wrong, what Clinton did is wrong.. Just another example of what is WRONG with this country continues.. Morals aren't simple something we can pick and choose which "ones" are OK!
jannuncutt
10-12-2006, 09:22 AM
Ok here we go again, you make it about politic's , and then attempt to justify anything a Dem has done!
So, if you think what President's do is ok, guess you should think everything else is, right?, as long as they are a dem. Wrong is wrong is wrong, period... What Foley is accused of is wrong, what Clinton did is wrong.. Just another example of what is WRONG with this country continues.. Morals aren't simple something we can pick and choose which "ones" are OK!
Oh course, what Clinton did was wrong. He was impeached for it!
Paladin
10-12-2006, 09:25 AM
The woman were successfully intimidated.
Let's not act coy...we all know the names, if we've followed American news in the last decade. I never said there was a trial. I never said there was a conviction. I said the 'women said they were raped'...nothing other than that.I call BS. You claim they were successfully intimidated...where is the proof? That's just as foolhardy as me claiming the GOP put those women up to it.
IdahoMom
10-12-2006, 11:14 AM
I call BS. You claim they were successfully intimidated...where is the proof? That's just as foolhardy as me claiming the GOP put those women up to it.
IMO
LOL. "Call BS" all you want. I have seen the interviews with the women and heard their stories and in my opinion, they were intimidated at the time it happened. There are many ways to intimidate someone- some more subtle than others. Its an ages old story about a person fearing standing up to a person in a position of authority. We've all seen it before, so in these cases, it's certainly NOT out of the realm of possibility. IMO, of course. :D
IMO
Paladin
10-12-2006, 12:15 PM
IMO
IMO, of course. :D
IMO
Hehe, of course. :D
Pepper
10-12-2006, 12:23 PM
Ok here we go again, you make it about politic's , and then attempt to justify anything a Dem has done!
So, if you think what President's do is ok, guess you should think everything else is, right?, as long as they are a dem. Wrong is wrong is wrong, period... What Foley is accused of is wrong, what Clinton did is wrong.. Just another example of what is WRONG with this country continues.. Morals aren't simple something we can pick and choose which "ones" are OK!
Making sexual overtures to any page or intern or servant, and using one's position of power and prestige to succeed in this seduction is WRONG regardless of the predator's political persuasion.
Clinton was wrong. Foley was wrong.
For everyone that is defending Clinton, let's just say what if a University president was caught having a sexual relationship with one of his student interns? And for the sake of argument, let's just say she was a graduate student intern and over 21. My guess is that the community would DEMAND that university presiden's immediate resignation.
Making sexual overtures to any page or intern or servant, and using one's position of power and prestige to succeed in this seduction is WRONG regardless of the predator's political persuasion.
Clinton was wrong. Foley was wrong.
For everyone that is defending Clinton, let's just say what if a University president was caught having a sexual relationship with one of his student interns? And for the sake of argument, let's just say she was a graduate student intern and over 21. My guess is that the community would DEMAND that university presiden's immediate resignation.
Not necessarily, Pepper. Universities have been wrestling with that very question, though professor/student relationships are far more damning that anything the president of a university might do. Such presidents have minimal contact with or control over students.
The question is difficult precisely because most cases involve students who are legal adults.
Some universities have tried to ban faculty/student relationships, others just "strongly recommend" against them.
Ok here we go again, you make it about politic's , and then attempt to justify anything a Dem has done!
So, if you think what President's do is ok, guess you should think everything else is, right?, as long as they are a dem. Wrong is wrong is wrong, period... What Foley is accused of is wrong, what Clinton did is wrong.. Just another example of what is WRONG with this country continues.. Morals aren't simple something we can pick and choose which "ones" are OK!
Well, no, what's wrong with this country is that at least half the population never matured beyond a second-grade mentality.
Grown-ups recognize that some "wrongs" are serious, some are trivial, but all may be evaluated in terms of the harm directly caused by said "wrong."
HELLO..... clinton wasn't a child molester, at least she was legal.
Cypros
10-13-2006, 08:00 PM
Not necessarily, Pepper. Universities have been wrestling with that very question, though professor/student relationships are far more damning that anything the president of a university might do. Such presidents have minimal contact with or control over students.
The question is difficult precisely because most cases involve students who are legal adults.
Some universities have tried to ban faculty/student relationships, others just "strongly recommend" against them.
Yep. I don't think there would be much response to the situation of a university president with a consenting student since both are adults. I think most would lose respect for the president since he/she would mot likely be significantly older than the student and thus in a position of using his/her status of power and prestige to manipulate the student. But only if the said president tried to use his/her position to gain favors for the student (pressure professors to give that student a better grade than deserved) would it be unethical. Nothing criminal.
A relationship between professor and student is much more troublesome. The professor is in direct control of the student's grade and thus able to manipulate the younger, less powerful student. Of course, I have known of students having affairs with their professor and then using that to guarantee A's, gaining approval on a dissertation, etc. by threatening to make the relationship public (and telling the spouse!!). So either way it is a very bad idea for professors and students (like bosses and employees) to get intimately involved. But it is not illegal and only in few universities these days would it risk one's job (only if it is written in the school's code).
I think Clinton was an excellent and capable president (although not perfect), but I lost a lot of respect for him on a personal level when the story of Monica Lewinsky came out. He should have avoided her at all costs because of their relative positions (not to mention the fact that he was married!). Only the FACT that she initiated the relationship (by her own admission) saves him a little IMO because it was not him that was pursuing her. There was no sexual harassment. She was VERY willing. Despite my distaste for his poor behavior and choice in this matter, I do not think that it warranted an impeachment and in fact it technically was not the reason he was impeached. All the Republican hounddogs had to get him for was that he lied about a sexual relationship while under oath. If we are going to impeach on lying, the George W. Bush would have been gone ages ago. Personally, I think that incompetence is a much better reason to impeach than an illicit but legal affair.
Maral
10-14-2006, 10:32 AM
Pedro, you seem to be riding a one trick pony. I am definitely not minimizing Foley's totally unacceptable behavior. Our elected officials have a tendency to believe themselves totally above the law. They do need to be held accountable for their actions.
Clinton did pardon Mel Reynoldsl. If you remember he had sex with a sixteen year old and was also convicted of spending violations.
Barney Frank lived with a male prostitute who was running a sex for hire business right out of their apartment. He did get censured, but is now a top ranking congressman.
Gerry Studds was caught having sex with a 16 year old male. He refused to resign and continued to serve.
I believe an interviewee on ABC told Charlie Gibson, there's more to come out on others. But, if they're Democrats, then you can bet your bottom dollar you won't hear about them untill after November 7.
Disgusting as Foley is, there are others out there that are just as bad. Oh, BTW, the above named Congressmen are/were Democrats.
I just saw on the news that Gerry Studds passed away early this morning in Boston.
I'm not defending Studds' immoral involvement with a page, but the big difference between his situation and Foley's is that when the Democratic leadership in Congress found out about it, they censured him immediately. The Republican leadership tried to cover up Foley's.
Marthatex
10-14-2006, 12:07 PM
Was 16 legal at that time? Good point about the difference there, Maral.
I'm not defending Studds' immoral involvement with a page, but the big difference between his situation and Foley's is that when the Democratic leadership in Congress found out about it, they censured him immediately. The Republican leadership tried to cover up Foley's.
As always, Maral, you cut straight to the point.
Yes, there were or are (as one poster put) "bad apples" in both parties. The issue here is that the Republican leadership thinks maintaining its own power is more important than protecting teenagers.
Pedro
10-15-2006, 09:26 AM
The issue here is that the Republican leadership thinks maintaining its own power is more important than protecting teenagers.
Quote of the day!
Quote of the day!
Our local state assembly-person, Bonnie Garcia, was visiting a high school social studies class when someone mentioned Governor Schwartzenegger. "I wouldn't kick him out of my bed," Ms. Garcia replied. Apparently, some of the parents present thought this an inappropriate remark in front of high school seniors.
This morning, Ms. Garcia replied in the press, not admitting she said what was reported, but apologizing if her comments were "inappropriate." She then proceeded to launch into a lengthy diatribe against Democrats for supposedly exposing her remarks.
This latter Republican tactic is so pervasive it may well have come from a Karl Rove memo. When your misdeeds are exposed (and Garcia's were admittedly mild), just blame the opposition for leaking them to the press (whether or not there is any evidence the opposition is the source of the leak).
HeartofTexas
10-16-2006, 07:11 PM
it may well have come from a Karl Rove memo.
Amen to that! Somewhere there is a vast Republican play book constructed by Karl Rove, and that one's definitely in it.
I assume it was clear that I'm not suggesting Garcia's careless remark is in any way equivalent to Foley's predation. But the fact that Garcia so quickly made use of the same response tactic shows just how pervasive the "Rove playbook" is in the Republican party.
Straitfan
10-17-2006, 01:36 AM
Well, no, what's wrong with this country is that at least half the population never matured beyond a second-grade mentality.
Grown-ups recognize that some "wrongs" are serious, some are trivial, but all may be evaluated in terms of the harm directly caused by said "wrong."
That is of course based on what one considers serious vs trivial! Your "trivial" may not be the same as those with quote second-grade mentality, which I will state again, we wonder what is wrong with this country, one cannot pick and chose what is trivial and what is not when it comes to right and wrong... (JMO, of course!) (Don't believe you are trying to say because one may think Clinton was also in the wrong means, one has no mentality.)
Straitfan
10-17-2006, 01:41 AM
HELLO..... clinton wasn't a child molester, at least she was legal.
Yes you are right she was legal,(though not so sure how one see's big difference in a 17 yr old vs one who is 18 yrs old, pretty similar mentality one would think!) That being said no clinton was not considered a child molester, but he was the PRESIDENT!! Don't believe that makes his actions any more ok than someone else's.
Masterj
10-17-2006, 10:03 AM
Yes you are right she was legal,(though not so sure how one see's big difference in a 17 yr old vs one who is 18 yrs old, pretty similar mentality one would think!) That being said no clinton was not considered a child molester, but he was the PRESIDENT!! Don't believe that makes his actions any more ok than someone else's.
Monica Lewinsky was born in 1973 and began having an affair with Clinton in 1995, making her 22 years old. I don't know where you are getting this 17/18 year old info from, but it is inaccurate.
Monica Lewinsky was born in 1973 and began having an affair with Clinton in 1995, making her 22 years old. I don't know where you are getting this 17/18 year old info from, but it is inaccurate.
Maybe from Fox News and the like. They've been subtracting years off Lewinsky's age for some time now.
That is of course based on what one considers serious vs trivial! Your "trivial" may not be the same as those with quote second-grade mentality, which I will state again, we wonder what is wrong with this country, one cannot pick and chose what is trivial and what is not when it comes to right and wrong... (JMO, of course!) (Don't believe you are trying to say because one may think Clinton was also in the wrong means, one has no mentality.)
Certainly not. I think we all agree Clinton made mistakes.
But adults MUST decide which wrongs are serious and which are trivial. A parking infraction does not equal mass murder. Consensual sex between legal adults does not equal preying on minors.
RiverRat
10-17-2006, 06:12 PM
Tuesday, October 17, 2006, 5:31 pm
By BRIAN SKOLOFF, ASSOCIATED PRESS
Foley tells church of alleged abuser
WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. -- Disgraced former U.S. U.S. Rep. Mark Foley has revealed to the Archdiocese of Miami the name of the Roman Catholic clergyman he says abused him as a teenager, a close friend of Foley's said Tuesday.
The name was not made public and it was not immediately clear whether the person was still active in the church or is alive.
Foley's civil attorney Gerald Richman was to make the announcement at a news conference Tuesday evening, the friend told The Associated Press, on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak about the case.
According to the source, the church offered Foley counseling in the matter, which Foley accepted. He plans to begin that counseling after completing treatment for alcoholism. The archdiocese did not immediately respond to phone messages and emails Tuesday.
http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061017/BREAKING04/61017002
SadieMae
10-17-2006, 08:31 PM
Foley just totally wierds me out. My hinky meter is way up on him...who wants to bet the priest he "says" molested him is someone dead? I think Foley is a liar all the way around. JMO
...who wants to bet the priest he "says" molested him is someone dead?
My thought exactly.
awwwwwwwww,,,, poor baby!!! did 'ums get molested by a priest!!!?
nice try, to distract attention away from youself, and make yourself out to be the victim here.... (NOT!!!!!!)
Straitfan
10-18-2006, 12:56 AM
Monica Lewinsky was born in 1973 and began having an affair with Clinton in 1995, making her 22 years old. I don't know where you are getting this 17/18 year old info from, but it is inaccurate.
And 18, 22, and what he was approx 30 yrs older, which is/nor has never been my point to begin with.. He was the President!!, whether she was 15 or 30 does not play in my equation!.. He was a public , elected servent who had the responibilty as well as the rest of them to do right! Rep/Dem makes no difference whatsoever when it comes down to right and wrong.
Becba
10-18-2006, 02:27 AM
Foley just totally wierds me out. My hinky meter is way up on him...who wants to bet the priest he "says" molested him is someone dead? I think Foley is a liar all the way around. JMO
They said on CNN tonight that his so called molestor is still alive. It makes no difference to me in my opinion about Foley. It is hard to beleive his allegation when he only comes out with this after he is in trouble. If he was molested, get the Preist off the street and in jail. But it will not change what Foley was up to.
They said on CNN tonight that his so called molestor is still alive. It makes no difference to me in my opinion about Foley. It is hard to beleive his allegation when he only comes out with this after he is in trouble. If he was molested, get the Preist off the street and in jail. But it will not change what Foley was up to.
Yes, indeed. And how odd that he waited until now to speak up and protect others from that priest, given that Foley was head of a committee formed to protect minors.
And 18, 22, and what he was approx 30 yrs older, which is/nor has never been my point to begin with.. He was the President!!, whether she was 15 or 30 does not play in my equation!.. He was a public , elected servent who had the responibilty as well as the rest of them to do right! Rep/Dem makes no difference whatsoever when it comes down to right and wrong.
The President has a special obligation not to commit adultery? I missed that part of the Constitution. Apparently, most presidents miss it, too.
Maral
10-18-2006, 04:58 PM
Yes, indeed. And how odd that he waited until now to speak up and protect others from that priest, given that Foley was head of a committee formed to protect minors.
Good point, Nova. I hadn't thought yet about how he could have protected others by speaking up a lot sooner if he was indeed molested by a priest. Doesn't say much for the guy, does it?
windovervocalcords
10-18-2006, 07:53 PM
Since it was widely known on Capitol Hill that Foley was a closeted homosexual, he was never going to rise above the "lavender ceiling" in the Republican party leadership. Moreover, he had raised prodigious amounts of campaign money, so what other kinds of leverage did they have against him other than his sex scandals simmering beneath the surface?
For the White House and the Republican Congressional Leadership the CAFTA was a signature issue that year. The telephone calls between the two ends of Pennsylvania Avenue must have been frantic and the logs of such calls should be preserved.
But who could they flip? What leverage or sweeteners did they have? Did they attempt to blackmail him by letting political rivals "out" him? Or did they "greymail" him by promising to help Foley sweep these emerging scandals under the rug? Or did they promise to try to give him a "soft landing" in the event the allegations should become public?
If Foley's sexcapades were even whispered in this political context that day, then this scandal could lead right in to the White House and possibly even to the Oval Office.
Is this another smoking gun which will emerge when House Members and staff are put under oath? Whatever the truth is, the official rational behind Mr. Foley's vote switch has never made much sense. He and the Republican Leadership should be asked to explain his shifting position on the CAFTA vote.
http://www.counterpunch.org/tree10162006.html
Cypros
10-18-2006, 08:22 PM
VERY interesting, windovervocals.
IdahoMom
10-19-2006, 10:41 AM
The priest who molested Foley, knowing he was about to be "exposed" (sorry, no pun intended), has come forward with this:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15329373/
snip
A Roman Catholic priest said he had an inappropriate two-year relationship with former Rep. Mark Foley in the 1960s that included massaging the boy in the nude, but he did not specifically remember having sex, a newspaper reported Thursday.
The Rev. Anthony Mercieca, 72, described several encounters that he said Foley might perceive as sexually inappropriate, the Sarasota Herald-Tribune reported. They include massaging Foley while the boy was naked, skinny-dipping together at a secluded lake in Lake Worth and being nude in the same room on overnight trips.
Mercieca said there was one night when he was in a drug-induced stupor and there was an incident but he couldn't clearly remember, the newspaper reported.
and
Earlier this month, Roth said "Mark does not blame the trauma he sustained as a young adolescent for his totally inappropriate" e-mails and instant messages. "He continues to offer no excuse whatsoever for his conduct."
ISPTRAX
10-19-2006, 10:53 AM
Mercieca said there was one night when he was in a drug-induced stupor and there was an incident but he couldn't clearly remember, the newspaper reported.
I smell REHAB!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :rolleyes:
Amraann
10-19-2006, 12:10 PM
From another Link
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061019/ap_on_re_us/congressman_e_mails
Mercieca said although Foley plans to "expose him to the world," he still has "great memories of our trips," the newspaper reported.
"I wish him well," Mercieca said. "Let bygones be bygones."
I hope he goes to prison. He molested this guy as a child and Let bygones be bygones???
There is no way anyone is going to get me to believe that was the only child he ever touched.
vBulletin® v3.8.1, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
0