{Split from other topic} About Foley 'resigning'... my question is, why did the St. Petersburg Times not expose Foley as a possible child sex predator if they had the story last November? -http://gaypatriot.net/ If that's the case, wouldnt you say that stinks? It'll stink MORE if the page commitee knew about it that long.
Well, members of the press aren't exactly shining citizens. Who knows the exact reasons. From first impression they got scopped by ABC, so were they sitting on the story to protect Foley or did they sit on it too long just before springing it just before the election, thus giving the seat to Democrat? I don't read the St. Petersburg Times, so I don't know what political persuasion the paper leans. But then again, after working on an investigation in this town, you don't go printing allegations about members of congress until you can absolutely verify them. Maybe they were digging deeper and were put on a long trail? Who knows whats beyond those couple of inappropiate emails? But a year is a long time to wait for exposing a possible child predator, so I'm definitely leaning to my first impression.
It's amazing to me that supposed 'good political minds' will learn of something like this and fail to act quickly, in the hopes it will just go away. It's like waking to find the paper cut you got the day before has become infected and inflamed, so you just put a bandaid on it to avoid direct contact. Sooner or later the stinking pus is gonna ooze out around it. - - - - - - -- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - That said... I'm turning on my 'Hypocritical Bullshit Detector' and it's already shrieking. For a Party that is obsessed with sex is this any surprise to anyone Gerry Studds [D] MA, 1973 - 1996.
Well, according to Roll Call, Foley was interviewd by the House Page Board about his contact with the former Page last year. Jeez, I don't know how or why nothing has come of it until now. It doesn't take genius to realize the emails were inappropriate and indicating he may have done something of this nature before. As for the hypocrisy charge, yeah it happens all the time and it will never change either. People on one side of the political divide always see the otherside as evil and never want to see their own side's faults. Sadly, we're all human and capable of evil.
There's a LOT of conspiracist speculation on the various blog sites about this scenario: Who knew what when and why did this just now come out. Needs a 'stay-tuned' caveat on it.
Agreed that we can't get too hyped up too quickly... I'm a dedicated Americablog reader (insert Petty's distaste for Aravosis here) and they're all fired up about it... Even with a stay tuned caveat, this is about as bad a time for this for the GOP as there is... a month to go until the election and now they look like not only did they catch the hand in the cookie jar, they gave the guy the cookie jar... I don't really care who knew what and when... we don't need a process story on this... the bigger story is the hypocrisy meme that the GOP is there to protect our children, keep us safe, and protect us from ourselves and instead it's a bunch of doublespeak and tacit support for extremely unacceptable behavior. If the Dems can latch on to this and equate the tacit support for Foley with the ongoing policies that hurt Middle America (read: "What's the Matter with Kansas" - excellent book, very fair, and rather sad), they have their message for the election. They don't even need to have a position, all they have to say is "Is this really who you want in charge?" I hate the political angle of it, but if it works, it works. The policy will come later. Unless you're the GOP who got the government they wanted in 2000 and well, still haven't come up with too much policy.
Let's not forget this isnt the first time there's been a sex scandal in Congress and by far wont be the last. So you better go a little easy on that hypocrisy bit. There's a difference between ADVOCATING lifestyle, tolerating Lifestyle and objecting to having it shoved in everyone's face.** The backstory on this is what's interesting, WHO knew what when, WHO had the Emails {mildly damning} and who had the IM's {disgusting}... and there is a LOT of confusion on that. We Know Hastert and Boehner had seen the Emails and were notified {but when exactly?} of them and the guy hitting on the page. The IM's are a different story... They were captured and saved {by whom, and WHY?} and SOMEONE had them months ago. Now we presume the 'boy' wasnt in danger any longer, the jerk obviously would back off that after his big head regained control. And we have it on good source that the parents SAID they didnt want a big deal made of it, at the time. So... yes, MNL... i assume you see it the same way.. which is OBVIOUSLY why you dont care about why or when ... just WHO. Sorta like PlameGate. And the Rathergate TANG documents.... Let's REALLY not waste our time looking close, let's hang 'em! Heh... ** And yes, I've always been fully aware that those who screech the loudest are the ones that need the closest scrutiny. Sorta like the guy who always bashes queers and has a new queer joke everyday, and makes a point of letting you know how good he is with the girls. Makes great cover for your little hidden quirks
I joked, but as a clarification, and then I am probably done with this topic because it makes my stomach turn, I think Foley is a predator who was in a position of power and trust which he violated, so he deserves whatever punishment he gets. Checking himself into an alcoholic rehab program should not, and probably will not, protect him. He should have to register as a sex offender. He has shown established signs of being such, and experience shows people like him are extremely difficult, if impossible, to rehabilitate. Our society needs to know who and where he, and those like him, are. Those who assisted Foley or are found to be conspirators of allowing this type of activity to occur should be be prosecuted accordingly under the law. I don't care what type of sex people have, as long as they have it with consenting people of age and mental capacity.
If no other incidents are found, where he actually got to the point of meeting in expectation of getting in a minor's pants, that should NOT be the case. Already the laws need fine tuning and parsing, and what's needed here is the pure application of the law. PLUS the House and Senate need to make it clear that one offense results in censure, the second results in loss of all committee seats and the third results in the ouster of the offender..and, most importantly, they need not be addressed consecutively. If no one finds it out until the three occur, it doesnt matter. - - - - - - - But I hate to think what could happen if someone accuses a member out of spite or bad intention. As far as I know, they are still pinning that sex offender label on 21 year old's who make the mistake of having sex with their 17 year old girl friends... all it takes is for the girl or her parents to get pissed off at him. but that's a subject for another time. In the case of overly familiar or intimate communications, without proof of intent to follow through, there's already a method... which is to apply the sexual harassment laws already on the books. And a minor in a guardian program like the pages, cannot consent to sexual banter; ergo, any such IS harassment. Which would be an improvement on a couple cases in the past... where actual sex with an underage page resulted in censure, but the Rep kept on getting elected. And, one, with the stated view that the sex was nobody's business.
Okay, folks...note those highlighted parts. Now... let's imagine for a minute that Rush Limbaugh had got the same goods on onna those earlier Dems, and he figured.. 'Hey, i could just sit on this stuff until about 5 weeks before the election and let it out for maximum effect' Should he be prosecuted for that? You damn betcha... so stay tuned for stay tuned. Naw... MNL wont be prosecuted even if he did figger it out. - - - - - - -- - - - - - But there may be black cars rollin' into Mr Rogers' Neighborhood - Mike Rogers, BlogActive, Tuesday, March 22, 2005 emphasis mine. * BlogActive outs gays who dont conform to the activist Gay agenda. Need I speculate?
Two things, Petty. 1. One is that homosexuality doesn't equal sexual predator. 2. Two is that pedophilia is more serious than "other sexual scandals." Email cruising by a pedophile seems to me to be more serious than having oral sex with an adult female. And that wound up in impeachment. Enough talk about this. It sickens me almost as much as what's been happening in CO and PA. Sometimes I think the whole friggin' country needs to take a shower.
Nope, Don... talking about Sens, Reps and pages... And yes, they do need SOMETHING. But the real story IS about who knew what when. No longer about the cruising. BY the way Don.... didnt we know, when we were that age, when some old guy was coming on 'all hinky'?
and because these kids didn't, it's their fault? Or because they didn't want to jeopardize what could be a lifetime career, it's their fault? The adult has the power in all cases like this. There is no mitigation possible.
No, it's NOT their fault... I'm trying to leaven this. And there is ALREADY mitigation... the parents declined to press the case; Which they PROBABLY wouldnt have done if the child were younger YOu'll not see 'pedophile' charges on this due to the age of the victim. Foley may face criminal charges and that's just fine with me, but what I am saying relates to my early post that proposes this is AT LEAST sexual harassment on the face of it. And maybe if Leadership werent such dunces, they would have looked at it that way. If they HAD, they probably wouldnt have been so blase about it. - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - -- - - - My reference to 'what did we know, as kids, 40 years ago' would make a good discussion topic. We DID know about dirty old men and 'funny uncles' by the time we hit our teens... I know I did even though I only had a couple of incidents with the former and none with the latter. By the time we hit high school, we speculated about which of our old maid teachers might be 'sweet on each other' and which Asst Principals we thought were getting their jollies wielding the 'big flat board'. And we knew what Middle School 'hot teachers' had a 'teen-age fixation'. This was in the FIFTIES! Given the current teenage pop culture, the thought the kid didnt have an idea this guy was a perv is, IMO, a laff. - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - -- - - - That aside, WHETHER the kid was gullible or might have led him along, makes no difference... but THAT is the difference between pedophilia and violation of trust.
I hate to take petty's side on anything, but the pedophilia label that's been slapped on this is probably a misnomer. Pedophilia implies sexual interest in pre-pubescents. The fact is that age of consent in D.C. is 16 and we're not talking about pedophilia here... we're just talking about really icky behaviour. And it's definitely icky. Agreed that this amounts to a gross case of sexual harassment. Add in the fact that the pages were 16 and 17 years old and it makes it that much worse. Now that the semantics are aside, we're still back to the question of who knew what and when. Hastert's big problem is he knew, he didn't do anything and he lied about it. I think Reynolds and maybe Boehner are in the same boat. There's been less said about Shimkus, but that's because he doesn't have the same leadership stake as the others.
Yep... every time I hear Hastert dissemble, he's less and less convincing. {added:} And, you're right, that's probably the last thing you and I will agree on as this unfolds. The best thing for Hastert to do right now is to, fall on his sword and bring himself up for censure. I think that's appropriate, considering he's Republican and thus his crime -sticking his head in the sand- is about on a par with a Dem Rep that has sex with an underage girl Page.
