Congressman quits over sexual harrassment

[Rex Kickass]

You know Tex, I think that this statement fits alot of the posters here at Soxtalk in the Filibuster. I know I have found myself on occasion wanting to defend something a dumbass conservative did just because somehow I think it makes me look bad by comparison. This guy is a creep, and just because he shared some of my political values doesn't make me a bad guy. I may be an Evil Monkey, but I am not a bad guy. All of us here should stop taking personal offense when someone from a party that we belong to or identify with does something bad. Probably not gonna happen, but I try. In cases like this, I just try to bring the rhetoric down to something reasonable. I can see a few on here ready to lynch the whole Republican partyfor this, and being so close to elections, there are some people just soiling themselves over the possible political ramifications. This is a sad situation for all involved, but is more an inditement of Congress and the political climate as a whole than any one party. I hate politics.

 

Here's the thing, if the Dems were in this situation, I'd tear up my nonexistent Democrat card. What it appears the leadership did - protect one of their own who is a sexual predator rather than even so much as investigate it when they knew something was up in 2001 - this is the whole party. And I wish it wasn't.

[vandy125]

 

The GOP should not have to be spinning this. There are bad people in both parties. It sickens me when the good people feel like they are shamed by someone like this. Some criminals are able to hide stuff better than others. Most people are always looking for the good in people and it is difficult to believe the worse. If someone in Montana is now going to vote for a Dem because of this, that is just stupid in my book.

 

I would tend to agree that they should not have to spin this, but think about what a few bad seeds in the Catholic Church's priesthood has done. Shots continue to be taken against them for what has happened. I'm sure that they don't want the GOP name associated with this sort of thing.

[Balta1701]

Here's the thing, if the Dems were in this situation, I'd tear up my nonexistent Democrat card. What it appears the leadership did - protect one of their own who is a sexual predator rather than even so much as investigate it when they knew something was up in 2001 - this is the whole party. And I wish it wasn't.

At least based on the suggestion of ABC News last night, it doesn't seem out of the question that other names could be coming out in the near future as having done something similar with other pages, so I wouldn't rule out anything.

[Texsox]

Here's the thing, if the Dems were in this situation, I'd tear up my nonexistent Democrat card. What it appears the leadership did - protect one of their own who is a sexual predator rather than even so much as investigate it when they knew something was up in 2001 - this is the whole party. And I wish it wasn't.

I have to call a b.s. on you my friend.

 

You wouldn't and here's why. Which is easier to give up?

 

A. Your values

B. Dem leadership

 

IMHO, the leaders come and go, the values should stay somewhat consistent. So the GOP leadership may, and probably did, fall down on this one. I wouldn't expect a dyed in the wool conservative to suddenly abandon pro-life, pro-death(if the government decides the person should die), freedom to own and use guns, run up huge debts to "stimulate the economy", positions to embrace Democratic ideals.

 

So you soldier on, perhaps right letters, or move to elect better candidates from your party. But you wouldn't suddenly stop thinking and start chanting ditto Rush and pushing for a ban on gay marriage.

[Balta1701]

Part 1:

 

 

Part 2:

[Jenksismyhero]

Here's the thing, if the Dems were in this situation, I'd tear up my nonexistent Democrat card. What it appears the leadership did - protect one of their own who is a sexual predator rather than even so much as investigate it when they knew something was up in 2001 - this is the whole party. And I wish it wasn't.

 

 

I'm probably in the minority on this, but from what I've been reading I'm not sure how much blame I'd give the Repub leadership here. It all depends on the how much they knew. So a year ago they got notice 'hey this guy has been making inappropriate comments to a male page.' What's their duty? I'm sure someone called him or met with him and said 'hey stop that.' If he didn't stop is it really their problem?

 

I guess I just don't think an entire party is responsible for the personal acts of it's members. Again, it all depends on how much they knew and how many times they told him to stop. From what I'm reading there's no evidence that the Repubs new this was an ongoing problem or that they knew of how 'nasty' it was getting.

 

I do think it's ridiculous that people are calling for Hastert to resign and that the Dems are jumping all over 'Republicans' as a whole because of this. Most Republicans I know don't like to chat with 16 year old boys about their masturbation techniques.

 

 

Unless we've been drinking lots alcohol...

[EvilMonkey]

I'm probably in the minority on this, but from what I've been reading I'm not sure how much blame I'd give the Repub leadership here. It all depends on the how much they knew. So a year ago they got notice 'hey this guy has been making inappropriate comments to a male page.' What's their duty? I'm sure someone called him or met with him and said 'hey stop that.' If he didn't stop is it really their problem?

 

I guess I just don't think an entire party is responsible for the personal acts of it's members. Again, it all depends on how much they knew and how many times they told him to stop. From what I'm reading there's no evidence that the Repubs new this was an ongoing problem or that they knew of how 'nasty' it was getting.

 

I do think it's ridiculous that people are calling for Hastert to resign and that the Dems are jumping all over 'Republicans' as a whole because of this. Most Republicans I know don't like to chat with 16 year old boys about their masturbation techniques.

Unless we've been drinking lots alcohol...

While Hastert may want to consider resigning his leadership post, because quite frankly, he sucks, general calls for resignations are standard practice from the left leaning politicians.

[Balta1701]

While Hastert may want to consider resigning his leadership post, because quite frankly, he sucks, general calls for resignations are standard practice from the left leaning politicians.

And in this case, the Washington Times.

[FlaSoxxJim]

And in this case, the Washington Times.

 

And Ronald Reagan's eldest son, and Bey Buchanan. Couple of rabid moonbat lefties if ever I saw 'em.

[Texsox]

That's exactly what should be happening. The rank and file need to demand changes when something like this happens. Let the Dems spew all they want, do the right thing and the American public will respond favorably.

[Balta1701]

That's exactly what should be happening. The rank and file need to demand changes when something like this happens. Let the Dems spew all they want, do the right thing and the American public will respond favorably.

Wouldn't "Doing the right thing" have involved not letting it get to this point?

[southsider2k5]

Wouldn't "Doing the right thing" have involved not letting it get to this point?

 

An interesting point that I haven't seen brought out yet, is that the boys family wanted this kept quiet when it initially happened.

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationw...1,3559588.story

 

Hastert said he believed Shimkus acted in accordance with the wishes of the page's parents in handling the matter quietly without involving either the House ethics committee or other members of the House Page Board.

 

They did take some action

 

The staffer's office informed a Hastert aide shortly afterward and the speaker's office referred the matter to Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.), chairman of the House Page Board, who asked Foley to cease communication with the teenager.

 

Without a family willing to cooperate, you really can't do much to the offender unfortunately. It becomes like a domestic abuse case where you know the scumbag husband just kicked the crap out of his wife, but you can't do a damned thing about it, until she agrees to testify/give a statement.

 

Personally I don't like it, these kind of people should be taken down in a heartbeat, but the flipside is if you don't respect the wishes of the victims, you won't get victims to come forward.

[Texsox]

Wouldn't "Doing the right thing" have involved not letting it get to this point?

 

Wasn't the FBI alerted? At that point you have to trust the American law and order system to work.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Part 1:

Part 2:

 

I saw that last night. Jon Stewart is awesome.

[Rex Kickass]

An interesting point that I haven't seen brought out yet, is that the boys family wanted this kept quiet when it initially happened.

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationw...1,3559588.story

They did take some action

Without a family willing to cooperate, you really can't do much to the offender unfortunately. It becomes like a domestic abuse case where you know the scumbag husband just kicked the crap out of his wife, but you can't do a damned thing about it, until she agrees to testify/give a statement.

 

Personally I don't like it, these kind of people should be taken down in a heartbeat, but the flipside is if you don't respect the wishes of the victims, you won't get victims to come forward.

 

You can remove him from the chairmanship of the caucus on missing and exploited children. Could have even made it look like it was a restructuring or something. You can ask for a formal investigation and censure.

 

I have to call a b.s. on you my friend.

 

You wouldn't and here's why. Which is easier to give up?

 

A. Your values

B. Dem leadership

 

IMHO, the leaders come and go, the values should stay somewhat consistent. So the GOP leadership may, and probably did, fall down on this one. I wouldn't expect a dyed in the wool conservative to suddenly abandon pro-life, pro-death(if the government decides the person should die), freedom to own and use guns, run up huge debts to "stimulate the economy", positions to embrace Democratic ideals.

 

So you soldier on, perhaps right letters, or move to elect better candidates from your party. But you wouldn't suddenly stop thinking and start chanting ditto Rush and pushing for a ban on gay marriage.

 

Go ahead and call it. My Democratic Senator is in a tight battle that may cause the balance of power in the Senate to tip to the Dems if he wins.

 

But last week he voted for torture. I may vote for him, but I'm sure not helping him.

[Jenksismyhero]

That's exactly what should be happening. The rank and file need to demand changes when something like this happens. Let the Dems spew all they want, do the right thing and the American public will respond favorably.

 

Why? Because the Speaker has (or at least should have) better things to do then follow up on a dirty email sent by one of 200+ Republican members of the House?

 

I think the right thing would be to punish this guy, not because he's Republican, but because he's a perve. The fact that's he's Republican has nothing to do with the situation.

[southsider2k5]

You can remove him from the chairmanship of the caucus on missing and exploited children. Could have even made it look like it was a restructuring or something. You can ask for a formal investigation and censure.

Wouldn't both of those actions have been public though?

[Rex Kickass]

Removing him from the caucus? Sure, but the reasons why don't need to be disclosed. That's often private.

 

Why? Because the Speaker has (or at least should have) better things to do then follow up on a dirty email sent by one of 200+ Republican members of the House?

 

I think the right thing would be to punish this guy, not because he's Republican, but because he's a perve. The fact that's he's Republican has nothing to do with the situation.

 

If it was just the Speaker, if it was just one email, if it was just one report to his office - you might have a point. But it appears to be a lot of people covering it often.

[southsider2k5]

Removing him from the caucus? Sure, but the reasons why don't need to be disclosed. That's often private.

If it was just the Speaker, if it was just one email, if it was just one report to his office - you might have a point. But it appears to be a lot of people covering it often.

 

What about the formal investigation and censure?

[Balta1701]

What about the formal investigation and censure?

That part certainly didn't happen until after the press exposed him...and even then, the letters Hastert wrote to the AG requesting the investigation casually suggest that they should avoid investigating what the House leadership did in response to the information they had, but should only focus on who knew about the more sinister stuff...i.e.

 

“As I am sure you are aware, there are two different and distinct communications at issue here. First, Mr. Foley sent an email to a former page of Representative Alexander in the fall of 2005. This email was determined to be "over friendly" by Representative Alexander's office but was not sexual in nature. Second, based on media reports, there is a different set of communications which were sexually explicit instant messages which Mr. Foley reportedly sent another former page or pages. These communications, of which no one in the House Leadership was aware to my knowledge, reportedly were sent sometime in 2003.

 

And the hits just keep on coming.

 

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....

Edited October 3, 2006 by Balta1701

[NorthSideSox72]

Why? Because the Speaker has (or at least should have) better things to do then follow up on a dirty email sent by one of 200+ Republican members of the House?

 

I think the right thing would be to punish this guy, not because he's Republican, but because he's a perve. The fact that's he's Republican has nothing to do with the situation.

"Dirty email"? Didn't you say earlier in this thread... twice, in fact... that this crime deserves a punishment of testicle removal? I'd call it a little more than a dirty email. The CONGRESSIONAL leadership should have acted on this earlier. GOP and Dem. If Hastert was told about it in any detailed fashion, and the level of problem was made clear, and he failed to act... then he should at least step down as Speaker.

 

Now, here is the real problem. Someone says they "told" Hastert about it. That could mean anything. If "told" means it was casually mentioned, like "Hey, I think Foley is getting a little too close to the Pages. Keep an eye out", then I wouldn't call that something that Hastert should be necessarily expected to make a big deal of. If on the other hand "told" means multiple people made clear to him that Foley was encouraging or acting out sex crimes with minor Pages, then yeah, he'd better the heck rain destruction down on Foley.

 

So which was it? We probably will never now... unless there is an email.

[southsider2k5]

That part certainly didn't happen until after the press exposed him...and even then, the letters Hastert wrote to the AG requesting the investigation casually suggest that they should avoid investigating what the House leadership did in response to the information they had, but should only focus on who knew about the more sinister stuff...i.e.

 

That's not what I was asking. The family asked for privacy, and I wanted to know if a formal investigation and/or censure would have been a matter of public knowledge. If they could have been doing it in private that changes things vs if it would have had to be a piece of public record.

[Balta1701]

That's not what I was asking. The family asked for privacy, and I wanted to know if a formal investigation and/or censure would have been a matter of public knowledge. If they could have been doing it in private that changes things vs if it would have had to be a piece of public record.

I concur that they should have kept it private to start off...but I think they seem to have overstepped the limits of what most people would consider "Keeping it private". I mean, if nothing else, I think that if you see emails between a Congressman and a 16 year old page asking for photos, you at least have to tell the 3 Congresspeople running the Page program, and maybe do some checking to make sure nothing worse happened?

 

Btw, according to ABC's current reports, it's at least 2 different pages involved in these as well...so even if that particular family didn't want anything to be publically known...it might make some sense to check on what dealings other pages have had with this guy. I mean, that just seems logical to me I guess...the ol' "Where there's smoke there's fire".

[southsider2k5]

I concur that they should have kept it private to start off...but I think they seem to have overstepped the limits of what most people would consider "Keeping it private". I mean, if nothing else, I think that if you see emails between a Congressman and a 16 year old page asking for photos, you at least have to tell the 3 Congresspeople running the Page program, and maybe do some checking to make sure nothing worse happened?

 

Btw, according to ABC's current reports, it's at least 2 different pages involved in these as well...so even if that particular family didn't want anything to be publically known...it might make some sense to check on what dealings other pages have had with this guy. I mean, that just seems logical to me I guess...the ol' "Where there's smoke there's fire".

 

Trust me, I am of the vein that if an adult is taking advantage of kids, they need to be taken out back and have a bullet put in their heads. Its not the PC thing to think, but there aren't many things I could think of that are worse. Like I said the problem is, if you don't have a cooperating witness, you don't have a case (like the example of the abused housewife I used early). It sounds like they did take internal steps, at least according to Denny, but until we get more details out, it sounds like they were kind of stuck in the scope of what they could do.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Well, it seems the Conservative desires to not "gay bash" in all of this were short-lived indeed.

 

Some of this bile from conservative commentators is just horrific:

 

Ben Stein, American Spectator:

 

On the one hand, we have a poor misguided Republican man who had a romantic thing for young boys. He sent them suggestive e-mail. I agree, that’s not great. … I hope it won’t come as a surprise to anyone that a big part of male homosexual behavior is interest in young boys.

 

Linda Harvey, WorldNetDaily:

 

Open or suspected homosexuals should never be elected. The problem with homosexuals is that they frequently don’t have common sense and don’t acknowledge appropriate boundaries. Weird sex, public displays of “affection” and nudity, and sex with youth are built into the “gay” sub-culture.

 

Jonah Goldberg, National Review:

 

The funny thing is that you would think the left — particularly the gay left — would be a bit more interested in not having 16 and 17 year old teenagers classified as young children for legal/sexual/political purposes. If that were the case, then a whole lot of dirty old men would need to be prosecuted for felonies when they pick up street hustlers.

 

Wall Street Journal, editorial:

 

But in today’s politically correct culture, it’s easy to understand how senior Republicans might well have decided they had no grounds to doubt Mr. Foley merely because he was gay and a little too friendly in emails. Some of those liberals now shouting the loudest for Mr. Hastert’s head are the same voices who tell us that the larger society must be tolerant of private lifestyle choices, and certainly must never leap to conclusions about gay men and young boys.