Party Before Predators: Why Didn't GOP Leaders Stop Foley?

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

I think its repulsive no matter who does it and I would expect anyone, regarless of their party affiliation taken down for t.

I didn't expect to see the right-wing types get all moral relativist about it.

[Heracles 417]

what actually will happen is besides the point. ppl's opinions around here is what matters in this thread. and i just wanted to see if i had the logic down of those who responded by saying 'hey, the dems did it too!'. are they letting the repubs slide?

Daniel

:energetic:

To the contrary, based on the incidents why is it ok for a democrat to be re-elected while there is an outcry over the republican??

My original post was actually pointing out the hypocrisy, from the left, when it comes to their buddies doing something. Never said it was right or wrong..

Edited October 4, 2006 by Infidel

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

Do you think it's possible that people - regardless of their political affiliation -- are disgusted by this (no matter who does it) and are angry that they covered it up and didn't deal with it at the time? Are these people hypocrites?

I think children's safety and lives are a little more important than politics

[Heracles 417]

I think children's safety and lives are a little more important than politics

Exactly. so why are so many democrat politicians trying to use this, to their advantage, in a political manner???

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

I don't think it's just "democrats" who find it disgusting

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Aide says he reported Foley 2 years ago

By DEVLIN BARRETT, Associated Press Writer

20 minutes ago

A senior congressional aide said Wednesday he told House Speaker Dennis Hastert's office about worrisome conduct by his former boss, Rep. Mark Foley (news, bio, voting record), toward teenage pages more than three years ago, long before officials have acknowledged becoming aware of the issue.

Kirk Fordham made his comments to The Associated Press in an interview as a Kentucky Republican canceled a campaign fundraising event with Hastert. Rep. Ron Lewis (news, bio, voting record) said he wants to know the facts behind a scandal that has roiled Republicans since last week.

"I'm taking the speaker's words at face value," Lewis said in an interview. "I have no reason to doubt him. But until this is cleared up, I want to know the facts.

"If anyone in our leadership has done anything wrong, then I will be the first in line to condemn it."

Taken together, the comments by Fordham and the actions by Lewis added to the political uncertainty surrounding Hastert and fellow Republicans five weeks before midterm elections in which their control of the House will be tested.

Hastert's office did not immediately respond to either development.

Foley, 52, a Florida Republican, resigned last Friday after he was confronted with sexually explicit electronic messages he had sent teenage male pages. He has since entered an alcohol rehabilitation facility at an undisclosed location and, through his lawyer, has denied having had any sexual contact with minors.

His abrupt departure left behind a virtual sex scandal and a string of unanswered questions — about what senior lawmakers knew, when they learned and what they did about it.

Fordham said he was serving as Foley's chief of staff when he was told about the lawmaker's inappropriate behavior toward pages more than three years ago. He said he had "more than one conversation with senior staff at the highest level of the House of Representatives asking them to intervene" at the time.

Fordham declined to identify the officials in Hastert's office he spoke with.

Two members of the GOP leadership say they told Hastert this past spring they had heard Foley had sent overly friendly e-mails to a page. Hastert said over the weekend he does not recall those conversations, but has not disputed they took place.

Fordham resigned Wednesday as chief of staff to Rep. Thomas Reynolds (news, bio, voting record), R-N.Y., and said: "I never attempted to prevent any inquiries or investigation."

He said he would fully disclose to the FBI and the House ethics committee "any and all meetings and phone calls" regarding Foley's behavior that he had with senior staffers in the House leadership.

[rclouse 0]

Here's another one:

This time hotlinked from Photobucket.

This Wikipedia article shows that you're comparing apples to oranges. Both incidents are fruity, but only one involves a pedophile.

[ieldanth 0]

We will see the answers when the investigation is over. If Foley gets to wander off into retirement with full pension and doesn't face criminal charges, that would the the bigger crime.

[GaryC 7]

Here's another one:

This time hotlinked from Photobucket.

This Wikipedia article shows that you're comparing apples to oranges. Both incidents are fruity, but only one involves a pedophile.

Sure reclouse, only one involves a pedophile. Studds. Did you read the bio?

In 1983, he admitted to having a sexual relationship with a 17-year-old male page in 1973 and was censured by the House of Representatives.

So far all Foley did was talk dirty. Studds admitted to having sex with a minor. Both are sick but one is criminal.

Before the Dems start throwing stones they should step out of their glass house.

Edited October 4, 2006 by Iniibig ko si Luz forever

[luvaLimey 0]

As far as I was aware, soliciting sex from minors over the internet WAS illegal....

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

I think was Studds did was equally responded and I did not approve of how it was handled -- but, it happened almost 25 years ago, it's not exactly relevant to politics today

[GaryC 7]

As far as I was aware, soliciting sex from minors over the internet WAS illegal....

I saw on the news today that dirty talk is not illegal as long as no attempt to make contact was made. But it is VERY SLEEZY and for that Foley should be drummed out of the congress. My only beef is the Dems acting like their sh!t does not stink.

[rclouse 0]

I think was Studds did was equally responded and I did not approve of how it was handled -- but, it happened almost 25 years ago, it's not exactly relevant to politics today

Also keep in mind there were no Democrats (or Republicans for that matter) who were aware of Studds' activities in 1973, or were aware and did nothing. That's why I keep saying apples & oranges.

What this is really about is how Republican leadership either ignored or worse covered up Foley's indiscretions because they wanted to keep his seat Republican. GaryC wants us to forget about this because he's rightfully afraid this will expose his Republicans for the corrupt, unethical bastards they are, which will lead to Republicans being thrown out in the election.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

No, she wasn't. She was born in 1973 and the affair started in 1995, making her 21-22 years old.

I haven't seen any evidence that the Democrats knew about this scandal but there IS evidence that the GOP leadership did. Of course nothing will actually happen to THEM; nothing ever does. I'm so sick of the Republicans I could puke.

Ok, your right on the birth date.

I haven't seen any evidence that the GOP leadership had anything but the most benign emails. The really serious ones were held back for the assualt by the Dems and the media. What is certain is that the Dems and media had the emails and IM's for a long time and held them up for their own reasons.

The American people are getting sick of the Dems and their tactics. The polls show that. Thats why the Dems are doing these dirty tricks now. They can't win with their ideas. Thats because they don't have any. The Republicans are going to hold onto the House and Senate. In two years another Republican will be in the white house. Wait and see.

I wonder why with an election literally just around the corner that people are even questioning that these sorts of revelations are not pre-meditated. Of course they are. On the one hand we've had the former president slammed for not "doing enough" to get Osama Bin Laden, and now this Rep guy has been revealed to be doing something extremely questionable and potentially criminal.

What does surprises me is that the term "moral relativism" has been bandied about on here quite recently in fact as a specific as a charge against non-religious "liberals". Yet when presented with clear evidence of a scandal with a clear public interest angle, that the only thing people can do is to claim that the other side have done the same or worse. I mean... how much more relativistic can you get?

Disregarding the obvious, that these revelations are part of a dirty political campaign - you can't deny that there is no public interest in the fact that an elected official has engaged in behaviour that the majority of people would find amounts not only to an abuse of his authority but borders on pedophilia - and that this has likely been covered up by others in his party, for purely political reasons as opposed to the public good.

It really is time that people stopped with this stupid to-ing and fro-ing of accusations and actually took a good hard look at their political representatives (from all sides of the fence) and seriously ask whether these people are really serving their constituents and doing good for the country, or merely helping themselves.

Edited October 4, 2006 by erekose

[GaryC 7]

I think was Studds did was equally responded and I did not approve of how it was handled -- but, it happened almost 25 years ago, it's not exactly relevant to politics today

Also keep in mind there were no Democrats (or Republicans for that matter) who were aware of Studds' activities in 1973, or were aware and did nothing. That's why I keep saying apples & oranges.

What this is really about is how Republican leadership either ignored or worse covered up Foley's indiscretions because they wanted to keep his seat Republican. GaryC wants us to forget about this because he's rightfully afraid this will expose his Republicans for the corrupt, unethical bastards they are, which will lead to Republicans being thrown out in the election.

Corrupt? Unethical?? Your describing the Dems!!!! You have a very short and convenient memory my friend!