Congressman quits over sexual harrassment

[kapkomet]

Another random thought here.... if it isn't OK to group the radical Islamists as represently all Islam, why is it OK to paint all repubs are being a part of this scandal? Guys like Hastert I understand, but unless Dems are calling the entire party coverup artists and child molesters, this should be affecting anyone except the few people who have been named, right?

That's what I was trying to get at, sort of, before I got all sidetracked. But that's ok, I don't know any better, apparently.

[Steff]

That's what I was trying to get at, sort of, before I got all sidetracked. But that's ok, I don't know any better, apparently.

 

 

 

Maybe you should go yell at those folks who are doing those things...

[Rex Kickass]

Another random thought here.... if it isn't OK to group the radical Islamists as represently all Islam, why is it OK to paint all repubs are being a part of this scandal? Guys like Hastert I understand, but unless Dems are calling the entire party coverup artists and child molesters, this should be affecting anyone except the few people who have been named, right?

 

There is a distinction to be made here I think.

 

There is a difference between "All GOP are child predator protectors." and "This is symptomatic of the culture of corruption that the GOP leadership has provided in Congress where nobody seems to need to practice what they preach."

 

The people that argue the first are idiots. The people that argue the second make sense.

[Rex Kickass]

Turns out Jim Kolbe didn't tell Foley to cut it out after all. He told a Foley staffer.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/10/fol...ndal/index.html

 

Denying a report that he confronted then-Rep. Mark Foley about his exchanges with teenage congressional pages, Rep. Jim Kolbe said Tuesday he knew of e-mails that made a page "uncomfortable" and passed them on to Foley's office and the House clerk.

 

The Washington Post reported Monday that Kolbe went to Foley about the matter, but the Arizona Republican said in a statement Tuesday that he did not speak to Foley directly.

 

Kolbe's spokeswoman, Korenna Cline, has said the lawmaker learned of the correspondence in 2000 or perhaps 2001.

 

Kolbe was a member of the House Page Board when the e-mails were brought to his attention.

 

Emphasis mine.

[Balta1701]

Another random thought here.... if it isn't OK to group the radical Islamists as represently all Islam, why is it OK to paint all repubs are being a part of this scandal? Guys like Hastert I understand, but unless Dems are calling the entire party coverup artists and child molesters, this should be affecting anyone except the few people who have been named, right?

For the same reason you asked about the other guy...because Hastert (and Boehner and Reynolds) actually has a leadership position within the party, he only retains that position as long as he has the support of a majority of those within the Congress. If he were to be removed from his leadership position, a-la Trent Lott, it would be a sign of disapproval on the part of his constituents in his party who vote for him for that position. His retaining that position is either tacit approval of his actions or a belief that his actions are not serious enough for his removal from that position.

 

A better metaphor would be to discuss a state where the radical islamist party has won an election and therefore has shown that it has the support of a majority of the people, i.e. Hamas in the Palestinian territories.

[kapkomet]

For the same reason you asked about the other guy...because Hastert (and Boehner and Reynolds) actually has a leadership position within the party, he only retains that position as long as he has the support of a majority of those within the Congress. If he were to be removed from his leadership position, a-la Trent Lott, it would be a sign of disapproval on the part of his constituents in his party who vote for him for that position. His retaining that position is either tacit approval of his actions or a belief that his actions are not serious enough for his removal from that position.

 

A better metaphor would be to discuss a state where the radical islamist party has won an election and therefore has shown that it has the support of a majority of the people, i.e. Hamas in the Palestinian territories.

So it's hang the bastard (read: he MUST resign) now, but 20 years ago, it wasn't. Hypocrites.

[Balta1701]

So it's hang the bastard (read: he MUST resign) now, but 20 years ago, it wasn't. Hypocrites.

Well, I was under 5 20 years ago, but here's the question; did that guy you're talking about have any specific leadership positions within the party that he maintained?

[Rex Kickass]

If I recall correctly, the only thing the Democrats could do, they did.

 

They can't kick him out of the body because he didn't commit a crime. They DID censure him. They DID even go so far as hire an independent prosecutor to investigate the charges against him and found nothing. The Democrats made serious changes to the page program to protect the pages and give them more serious supervision.

 

How many independent prosecutors have the GOP led Congress put forth to see what's going on?

 

And furthermore, exactly who in the Democratic leadership of 2006 was protecting the jackass in the scandal back in 1983? That's like me using Nixon's dirty tricks in 1972 and 1973 to justify alleged wrong doing for the Clinton administration. Pointless, inane and misleading. It's just a tactic of people who want to deflect criticism from the Republicans because they can't stomach the fact that everything this leadership says they believe in, they don't actually give a s*** about.

[kapkomet]

Rec, NO ONE gives a s***. And it cracks me up when this feigned outrage comes from both sides of the aisle. Our government is so full of horse s***, they ought to just light the match and let the methane explode.

 

The Democrats want power back. At any cost. They have to leak s*** like this because they can't talk about issues. The Dems EVEN ADMIT IT! To paraphrase, if we talk about our plans, Karl Rove will beat the s*** out of it... boy, now THERE's a party full of ideas.

 

The Republicans have become little sniveling wimps. They are so worried about what THE MEDIA (notice I did NOT say the people) thinks and how they will get smeared that they can't talk about issues either.

 

I hate to say it, but most people in this country are fiscal conservatives (by that I mean, leave me the hell alone and let me live my life and don't have me pay up the wazoo in taxes). They are somewhat more liberal when it comes to social aspects, but most have a moral compass that guides them as they get more and more conservative as they live and understand life. I think that's why everyone is always so shocked when election day comes around and they seem to hang on. For all their problems, the Republican ideas seem to coincide more with mainstream America. We'll see if that happens this go round, smear tactics and assmuches like Foley notwithstanding.

 

Now where in the Democratic party does that fit now? I hear Pelosi's 100 hour plan, but that's all smoke and mirrors anyway, as is anything else coming out of the right wing spin machine.

 

Oh and one more thing, Studds should have resigned, like Foley did. And later on, with censure on record, he got appointed to leadership positions, assisted in some ways by no one other then Ms. Pelosi. So it's ok that the guy actually had sex with a 17 year old page and got leadership positions in the house, but then it's also ok to run for the microphones and talk about how bad the whole Republican party is for allowing Foley to send written messages (note differences)?

 

I'll try to say this again... Foley is an assmunch and deserves to have been ran off. But the Democrats want to use this as a referendum on the entire Republican party, and it's hypocracy at a very high level.

[southsider2k5]

If I recall correctly, the only thing the Democrats could do, they did.

 

They can't kick him out of the body because he didn't commit a crime. They DID censure him. They DID even go so far as hire an independent prosecutor to investigate the charges against him and found nothing. The Democrats made serious changes to the page program to protect the pages and give them more serious supervision.

 

How many independent prosecutors have the GOP led Congress put forth to see what's going on?

 

And furthermore, exactly who in the Democratic leadership of 2006 was protecting the jackass in the scandal back in 1983? That's like me using Nixon's dirty tricks in 1972 and 1973 to justify alleged wrong doing for the Clinton administration. Pointless, inane and misleading. It's just a tactic of people who want to deflect criticism from the Republicans because they can't stomach the fact that everything this leadership says they believe in, they don't actually give a s*** about.

 

The only thing that they could do? Did they pull their support for him as a canditate? Did they allow him to caucus with them? Did they publicly call him to the matt and say he doesn't represent the democratic part and we don't want him running as one? Heck he got appointed to leadership positions, which means the dems had to support him. Heck he got reelected that 5 times and that doesn't happen without the support of your party, which I guess means the democratic leadership gives it tacit approval for having sex with 17 year old kids according to what I am reading here in another post. It also means they don't really seem to give a s*** about reelecting and empowering admited child predators/molestors, who just happened to be lucky they were in Washington DC and not another state, or they would have been imprisioned.

 

I know Foley is a scumbag, who deserves his turn in prision. Heck I will lock his ass in there, along with anyone who protected him. But my point that we aren't seeing practiced, what is being preached, as usual. The way that this is being portrayed is that the entire republician party had real time access to all of this information, and decided to not only do nothing, they decided to conduct one of the worst coverups since I don't know when. Even if you believe all of the names bantered about in the media we are still talking about literally a handful of actual elected officials knew something, and we still don't know exactly what they knew. Even if we assume they knew the worst of it, somehow I doubt they ran back to all of the rest of their peers and said "hey guess what I heard about Foley!", which blows the whole systematic thing out of the water. Its kinda hard to give approval to something you don't know about.

 

Its different. It's always different.

[kapkomet]

Its different. It's always different.

 

It certainly is... /rolly

[Soxy]

If I recall correctly, the only thing the Democrats could do, they did.

 

They can't kick him out of the body because he didn't commit a crime. They DID censure him. They DID even go so far as hire an independent prosecutor to investigate the charges against him and found nothing. The Democrats made serious changes to the page program to protect the pages and give them more serious supervision.

From wiki:

In addition to the censure, the Democratic leadership stripped Studds of his chairmanship of the House Merchant Marine subcommittee. Studds was later appointed chair of the House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries.

 

Studds received standing ovations, not in Congress as has been reported, but in his home district at his first town meeting following his congressional censure.

 

The other member of congress implicated in the scandal, Dan Crane (R, IL), was also censured and defeated at election time.

[kapkomet]

From wiki:

In addition to the censure, the Democratic leadership stripped Studds of his chairmanship of the House Merchant Marine subcommittee. Studds was later appointed chair of the House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries.

 

Studds received standing ovations, not in Congress as has been reported, but in his home district at his first town meeting following his congressional censure.

 

The other member of congress implicated in the scandal, Dan Crane (R, IL), was also censured and defeated at election time.

Now I want to know the truth... because people were saying they were there when the "standing O" thing happened.

[EvilMonkey]

From wiki:

In addition to the censure, the Democratic leadership stripped Studds of his chairmanship of the House Merchant Marine subcommittee. Studds was later appointed chair of the House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries.

 

Studds received standing ovations, not in Congress as has been reported, but in his home district at his first town meeting following his congressional censure.

 

The other member of congress implicated in the scandal, Dan Crane (R, IL), was also censured and defeated at election time.

Crane was in his own scandal, with a female, not an 17 year old boy like Studds.

[Soxy]

Now I want to know the truth... because people were saying they were there when the "standing O" thing happened.

I don't know, but wiki said only 3 people DIDN'T vote for censure. So, I can't quite imagine who would have given it.

 

And all the references I can find on the web are from right wing blogs (blogsforbush, gopusa, etc). So, I don't know if it happened either way.

 

I sent a request to snopes about it though.

 

Crane was in his own scandal, with a female, not an 17 year old boy like Studds.

So, it's okay for him to sleep with a 17 year old female page? I don't see that situation any different from Studds'.

[southsider2k5]

So, it's okay for him to sleep with a 17 year old female page? I don't see that situation any different from Studds'.

 

Not at all. In fact the whole differences of the way society views that its cool for an old guy to hit on a young girl is pretty discusting if you ask me.

[Steff]

Not at all. In fact the whole differences of the way society views that its cool for an old guy to hit on a young girl is pretty discusting if you ask me.

 

 

 

 

[EvilMonkey]

I don't know, but wiki said only 3 people DIDN'T vote for censure. So, I can't quite imagine who would have given it.

 

And all the references I can find on the web are from right wing blogs (blogsforbush, gopusa, etc). So, I don't know if it happened either way.

 

I sent a request to snopes about it though.

So, it's okay for him to sleep with a 17 year old female page? I don't see that situation any different from Studds'.

Nope. Just making sure someone didn't think that Studds and Crane were tag-teaming someone, they were each dirtbags on their own.

[Balta1701]

So, the Washington Post has a nice summary of how the Foley scandal actually appeared.

 

First, the person who had the emails over a year ago and was sending them to whatever press organization they could may have been a Democrat. They were first leaked to the St. Pete Times and the Miami Herald by someone on the staff of Rep. Rodney Alexander (La.), a Republican...but Rep. Alexander changed parties in 2004, so there may still be some Democrats on his staff, and Harpers magazine says that the person they received the emails from 5 months ago was a Democrat.

 

But, for those who are saying "how did Pelosi and Reid plan this so that it was an October Surprise" or whatever garbage that was, this same person seems to have successively tried to leak the emails to the Miami Herald, the St. Petersberg Times, Harpers Magazine, and maybe was the same source as for CREW and the couple of bloggers who did see them, without having any luck in getting someone to pay attention.

 

Then, it seems that several other sources, these who are unquestionably Republicans, also got their hands on the emails and were very disturbed by them. It was these folks who leaked the emails to ABC, and who were finally able to get them published.

 

One of ABC News's sources, a former page, said he went public with his knowledge of the instant messages on Sept. 29 only after the network, the day before, published the questionable e-mails that Foley had sent to the Louisiana boy. The former page and current college student stressed that he is a "staunch Republican" who "wouldn't vote for a Democrat ever." He also said that he is not calling for the resignation of Hastert or any other Republican leader.

 

"I in no way knew or intended to have all the brouhaha about what the GOP leadership knew and when they knew it," he said in a detailed e-mail to The Post. "Truthfully, I am very troubled about what it seems has gone on behind the scenes, but that in no way affects my wish to have a continued GOP control of Congress. There are bad apples everywhere."

 

The Post subsequently received the instant messages from a Democratic college student who had served as a page with the two teenagers who had corresponded with Foley and had shared their instant messages.

 

Unlike the ABC News source, The Post's source conceded that he would like to see the Democrats seize control of the House in November, but when approached by a Post reporter about the instant messages, he was reluctant to provide them. Days later, he did so.

 

The two sources said they had conferred about the instant messages, which they had known about for months.

 

The Republican former page said he had decided it was up to the victims to come forward with them, but once ABC News published the e-mails, "I knew everything I had already known about Foley was finally going to come out. His attraction to young men. His sexual conversations with them, etc."

 

 

"I decided that it was in the best interests of kids in general, pages and my friends specifically that Foley be dealt with quickly and swiftly so that he couldn't hurt anyone else," the Republican student wrote in his e-mail. "We've seen how long the Justice department and every other government bureaucracy can take to deal with criminal issues and abuse. I knew the media would be the fastest way to get Foley the justice he deserved."

 

As for The Post's source, Foley's initial response to the disclosure of the e-mails finally persuaded him to share his information, he said.

 

"When the first e-mails came out, Foley's campaign came out saying it was all a well-timed Democratic smear. Those rumors were unfounded, and I knew that to be untrue," the Democratic former page said. Before the ABC News report, "we were reluctant to take on Congress as young politicos ourselves, but when first blows were made, there was no harm in coming forward," he added.

So, there was at least a couple Democrats involved in leaking the emails originally, but they were attempting to leak the emails for literally a full year before someone, in ABC, finally decided they were worth publishing. But ABC did not publish those emails until they received them from a second source, which ABC has insisted was a Republican.

 

When Mr. Foley was confronted with the content of those emails, he promptly resigned. The next day, a couple of pages, one a Democrat and one a Republican, sent the really nasty stuff to ABC, which they published as well.

 

There is no possible way anyone could view this as a Democratic setup, even on just the timing. There were people trying to leak these documents to the Press for over a year, but the Press felt they couldn't confirm them so they couldn't publish them. When ABC got them from a source they decided to trust, perhaps because that source was a Republican, they published them, at which point Foley immediately resigned.

[Rex Kickass]

So now this investigation thing is getting ridiculous. Apparently 10 years ago, openly gay Congressman Jim Kolbe went on a trip to the Grand Canyon, invited five staffers, his sister and a couple former pages to join him camping. Someone reported Kolbe offered the pages a hug, but no other contact.

 

Now he's under investigation too.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/13/kol...uiry/index.html

 

There's a big difference between being an online predator and giving someone a hug. This investigation is silly.

 

Remember Gerry Studds? He just died according to CNN.

[Texsox]

openly gay Congressman Jim Kolbe

 

Am I openly hetero? I can't wait until we can stop defining people as openly or closeted

[Rex Kickass]

It makes a difference because of the way this investigation is going. Instead of going towards people who are preying on pages. It's going towards gay people who like to give a hug.

[Texsox]

It makes a difference because of the way this investigation is going. Instead of going towards people who are preying on pages. It's going towards gay people who like to give a hug.

 

I understand that, it just saddens me that in 2006 we actually care if someone is heterosexual, or not.

[Rex Kickass]

I agree.

[Texsox]

I agree.