You're damn right I would have reported it. If your question is to whom, easy. The congressman that sponsored me. Most of the Congressmen that had a page up there at the time kept an eye on us, and I can not imagine that that has changed all that much. They would check in on us pretty regularly and encourage us to let them know if we had any problems because most of them felt a sense of responsibility in our welfare. Most of the members of congress are not scumbags and are actually pretty terrific people. Many of the Congressman would take their page out to dinner once a month or so, and in some cases, like mine, the Congressman that sponsored them would even give them a key to their home in case you just needed to get away from the Hill for a little while on a Saturday afternoon and watch some football. Remember that many of the pages are either a relative of a congressman or the children of a close friend of the congressman that sponsored them, or from a family that has been a large campaign donor. In almost every case the page is from the Congressman's district and one of the worst things that could happen to an incumbant congressman is to have a 16 year old constituant that he sponsored meet some kind of harm while in D.C. Can you imagine the negative headlines that would garner back home?
TTK, thanks. In this case, there should have been (if our goal is protecting kids) bad headlines a long time ago. It's going to be interesting to learn where these explicit IMs came from:
alot of the more conservative posters here are the ones talking about literally publicly castrating the guys caught in that "Predator" line of dateline shows. what this guy did was the SAME ******* THING, except he wasn't talking to undercover cops. he was talking to underage boys. i just think the reaction would be different if it asn't tied to a politician. some random story about an old dude emailing sex stuff to boys in the paper would be met by SOME (not all) on the right with a different reaction. also, some on the left may be reacting more harshly, since it's a GOP guy who's screwed up this time. the issue is simple. this guy was acting inappropriately sexually (communication counts) with CHIULDREN. that's all it is, but it is at LEAST just that very issue at the heart of this.
It is amazing that in someone's mind here, this is still all about Republicans holding a majority in the House, not about protecting the welfare of House pages. But in his mind, American will be destroyed the first day Democrats have control of one branch of government. So all sins and crimes must be hidden, swept under the rug, or forgiven, because terrorists will kill every American once Democrats control one branch of government. Have I got that right? That is the basic argument, right?
Seahorn, You may have the wrong premise. FIrst of all, look at the title and the first post of this thread and at the top of your message header...the main thing that's exciting people is NOT whether or not a crime has been committed, but what can emerge in the political aftermath. Add to that the fact that we don't know how many republican or democrat staffers knew this stuff was going on and did nothing about it (giving the sickening potential for more victims in the interrim) in order to wait until the end of September 2006 for whatever reason to reveal it. It is interesting that in the NRO's words today, the congressional Democrats have offered nothing to help our war on terror this past session, but that was my feeling before Florida 16 got back into play.
Somebody, somewhere, tell me what in hell this has to do with the war on terror, with Democrats, or with the press, before my brain explodes. Because there is nothing relevant, nothing. Start a thread on those other unrelated items if you want, say you hope the seat still goes to a Republican if you want, but get this horse's *** out of office, out of Washington, into jail, and quit deflecting the story. There may be a few more pages turned before this story is deleted from the email of history, which could get really interesting. FBI looking into who knew what and when, going back at least three or four years.
The worst part of this has been that it was apparently known by half of Congress that male pages should be kept away from him. Sad that he was so well protected.
Name, there are no gymnastics to it. There are a lot of people out there reaching the same conclusion. (Lots of links to same as well.) No one, including me, is saying former Rep. Foley should escape consequences, severe ones possibly at that. It's just that this isn't about justice, and stopping an ephebophile. If it was this would have been attended to years ago. This is about the D's picking up a seat (and possibly the House) from the R's, just as the poster said. And this is despicable...both what Rep. Foley did, and how the politics are being played with it. And I think you are just as eager as I to learn precisely who had those explicit IMs, and how long they had them for.
As far as Texas' belief that the Ds taking over the house would hurt the US and the War on Terror, I can postulate a scenario equally ridiculous. Having a member of the R leadership with this kind of skeleton in the closet could easily be used by a foreign enemy to gain sensitive materials, or votes against our country's interests. The ultimate "honey trap," as it used to be called. Remember that saying in politics,"the worst thing that can happen is to be caught with a dead girl or a live boy." Give it up Texas. Sometimes a person that appears to be a scumbag really is one. Anyone who covered for him or enabled him, despite their motivations, deserves to be tainted by that same stink.
TTK, Problem is, nobody's defending Rep. Foley. Wouldn't be surprised if the unspoken consensus is that he should go into a corner and hang himself. As for "blackmail", who expects our Islamic enemies to try that? Seriously? Would that be the worst threat we face. However, it was interesting to hear Jim Geraghty on Limbaugh's show today. Mr. Geraghty is convinced the election will turn (as the 2004 one) on national security. He said that in the latter contest, Sen. John Kerry polled well on national issues such as his stance on health care, but was seen as clearly inferior to GWB on his ability to handle U.S. security. Geraghty said that the American electorate in this post-9/11 era will, at day's end, vote for whomever they think will best protect their nation from overseas enemies. He sees this election in a similar light, given the current Democrat leadership's deficiencies in their national security plans. As for "classic", I have this gut feeling that it is going to get quite memorable.
A Democrat conducted World War II, a Democrat dropped the atomic bomb on Japan, so I really don't think it matters which party responds to terrorists. I would think neither party particularly likes terrorists. They both will do what they can to catch them. Democrats might tend to invade fewer countries without the backing of the rest of the world, however. It is a silly argument, but Republicans love to paint anyone who doesn't buy their party line as unpatriotic, planless, incapable of conducting a search for terrorists, etc. Just not true. Your defense assertions are no more true than the claims for the higher religous and moral ground, as evidenced by DeLay, Gingrich, Foley, et. al.
Accuratehorn, earlier in this thread I PINED for a Democrat in today's leadership with the backbone of their predecessors such as Andrew Jackson or FDR. I wonder if they'd listen to him?
Texas, I've pined for older Republicans such as Eisenhower - who was very judicious about the use of force abroad. You've set up a nice straw man - if I or any other Democrat oppose any use of force abroad, we favor the terrorists. Since that is the case, and you always know what is right, why do you support a democracy? You should run things all by yourself. It is a shame that you are so warped that you would prefer a pedophile to someone who doesn't agree with you on every aspect of how to fight the war on terrorism. No one disagrees on the goal, just the means. Your attitude is so undemocratic to borderline on fascism.
The problem with all the poltical fall out is that the Dems get to pick up a seat because the other guy's a scumbag pedophile, not because the other candidate offers up a better choice on policy or leadership or his party has a better plan for America. This whole thing sucks.
NEWDOC, nice to know you researched Foley's opposition so thoroughly and didn't drag out the broad brush. I'm sure whoever they pick to replace the pedophile will be pe(R)fect for the job. Hey Texas, here's a tidbit that should ease your mind on the timing issues you were so lathered up over Friday. The FBI was notified in July...but not by anyone in the GOP.
so I guess we aren't allowed to be concerned about enemies within - school room shootings, pedophiles, etc. Man, this is getting to weird. Several Republican brains on tis board are just about on the tipping edge.
It is my understanding that the Commander-in-Chief is the one who sends in troops and conducts war. Exactly what do you want the minority party in Congress to do-start a revolution and oust the Commander-in-Chief? They can't conduct war. If they criticize anything they are thrown under the patriotic bus, so it is pretty disingenuous to go around stating they don't have a plan. If the Democrats gain control of the Congress and the White House, they will conduct the remainder of the war, and they won't screw it up any worse than Bush has done.
"It is amazing that in someone's mind here, this is still all about Republicans holding a majority in the House, not about protecting the welfare of House pages." Do you think this whole thing came out, in order to protect the welfare of House pages?
accurate, according to this National Review article reviewing Bob Woodward's latest work, Donald Rumsfeld's strategy appears to be closest to the democrats. Find a democrat who tells us how we can win the war in Iraq (and the other war however connected the two are) on terror.
From a politcal perspective on this mess: as someone who cares about values when pulling the lever (not my only concern but a big one) this whole mess disgusts me. I say a pox on anyones head that knew about this and covered it up. The hypocricy of the Republican's on this matter is deeply disturbing to me. I do not, however, trust the Dems as a party to act any differently or to act better. This whole mess is disturbing on so many levels. How do we get to this point. It is truly disgusting. I don't see how anyone can be happy about any of this, from any perspective. Disgusting, all of it. Clinton getting blow jobs from 19 year olds. Republican's soliciting 16 year olds. People from both parties arguing/protecting the behavior b/c it's "their" team. Nobody should be able to exert their influence to prey upon someone underneath them that they have a positon of power and responsibility over.
First time reader of this forum and this thread and I gotta say, it's entertaining. Texas - I hope you don't own any weapons or work anywhere near my office - sounds like you're very close to going over the edge.
