Time ignores other scandal in Foley conflagration
SUMMARY: A Time article on the resignation of former Rep. Mark Foley reported Republican concerns about losing Foley's seat in the November elections, but the article failed to address the ethical questions that surround the House Republican leadership's handling of Foley's alleged actions.
A September 30 article by Time reporter Tim Padgett on the resignation of former Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) left out key facts that give the scandal national relevance. Absent from Padgett's article is any mention of the disclosure, reported by The Washington Post and Roll Call, among other outlets, that the House Republican leadership has known for months about emails reportedly sent by Foley to a 16-year-old-male congressional page.
Padgett reported that Foley quit the day after ABC News broke the news that Foley allegedly sent the page emails that were, in Time's words at the top of the article, "possibly inappropriate." ABC News reported after its initial story on September 28 that there were emails and instant messages, some of which it posted on its weblog several hours before Padgett's article went up. Padgett suggested that the reason Foley resigned so quickly might not have been because "there might be similar e-mail or instant messages lying in the hard drives of other teens in the capital," but because the communications expose Foley as gay, rumors of which he had "frequently worked to squelch." But the content of the emails and instant messages itself suggests yet a third possible reason for Foley's resignation, which Padgett apparently dismisses as insufficient -- their content indicates that a member of Congress in his early 50s was reportedly engaging in sexually explicit communications with one or more underage charges of the House of Representatives. Foley reportedly sent sexually explicit communications to one or more minors, but Padgett is apparently taking the position that the reason Foley resigned is "just as likely" to be that he has been exposed as gay.
While Padgett reported Republican concerns about losing Foley's seat in what was considered a safe Republican district, he completely ignored reports that the House Republican leadership apparently engaged in a months-long cover-up of Foley's alleged actions. According to Roll Call:
At least four Republican House Members, one senior GOP aide and a former top officer of the House were aware of the allegations about Foley that prompted the initial reporting regarding his e-mail contacts with a 16-year-old House page. They include: Majority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio), National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Tom Reynolds (N.Y.) and Reps. Rodney Alexander (R-La.) and John Shimkus (R-Ill.), as well as a senior aide to Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) and former Clerk of the House Jeff Trandahl.
Boehner strongly denied media reports late Friday night that he had informed Hastert of the allegations, saying "That is not true."
Reynolds refused to comment.
Shimkus, who chairs the page board, and Trandahl, who administered the program, met with Foley in 2005 after learning of Foley's e-mail exchange with the former page by Alexander. Shimkus released a detailed statement Friday night.
House sources said that Foley denied any improper sexual activity when confronted by Shimkus and Trandahl. Their information only included some August 2005 e-mails that contained no references to sex or other improper behavior, and not the other messages that have been reported by ABC News.
According to a senior House GOP leadership aide, Hastert's office was informed of the interview shortly after it occurred, but Hastert himself was not told.
While Roll Call has Boehner flatly denying that he had informed Hastert of the matter, according to the Post, Boehner has given conflicting statements about whether he talked with Hastert, as Joshua Micah Marshall of the blog Talking Points Memo noted. The Post reported that Boehner initially said that he informed Hastert of the matter when he learned of it in the spring, but then Boehner "later contacted The Post and said he could not remember whether he talked to Hastert." So Roll Call and the Post have reported Boehner apparently saying three different things: he talked to Hastert, he can't remember whether he talked to Hastert, and he did not talk to Hastert. Time makes no mention of the issue of whether the speaker of the House was informed of Foley's alleged conduct.
Yes, the potential loss of Foley's seat to a Democrat could bear on whether the GOP loses its majority in the House in November. But beyond the scandal's implications for Foley's seat is the significance of the action or inaction of the current House leadership. Padgett's article simply ignored this issue.
for the Catholic Church to cover up their knowledge of abusive priests, then why shouldn't the same standard be applied to the GOP? Aside from the word games being played by the House leadership, it is disturbing (and under-reported) that it seems that the Democratic member of the page board wasn't told about any of this, he learned about it in the news. The GOP will stop at nothing to retain their straglehold on power.
Was to keep any negative news about the Republicans out of the news cycle, a strategy which has seriously backfired. Now they looked like perverts and crooks. Republicans: the true face of "American Family Values".
Why are there 16 years olds working in Congress? I mean, I know some of these Congressman ACT like children; I didn't know there were actual children working as paiges in the house of representatives. Someone explain to me what that's all about. And what 16 year old WANTS to work in Congress? Wouldn't a 16 year old rather be lighting his friend on fire and putting the home video on YouTube? instead of making photocopies for Mark Foley (R) Florida?
They have an interest in politics and how their country is run ?
Prehaps they may wish to run for office themselves in the future and would like to see how it's done?
Nice delfection though.
Maybe your sidenote should be on how Republicans booed when Pelosi asked for an investigation as to why Democrat leaders were not informed for months about a Republican official sending messages of a sexual nature to underaged boys, and the fact that NOTHING was done about it by the Republican House leadership.
They want to run for Congress someday and they know this at sixteen? Anyway, I had no idea there were such young kids running around the halls of government. I just thought that was interesting. It's not a deflection; what do you want me to say about this item? Be like the rest of the people in the world and say that pedophilia is bad? Maybe I should go the Bill O'Reilly route. On my next post.
How do you know about this item with Pelosi getting booed? Do you have a link to that? Where did you read/see that?
I'm 55 and I've known for at least 40 years that teenage pages work for Congress. What rock have you been living under that you didn't know that?
After all, in the Kingdom of George the Duhhbyeth, the occupants in the house of representatives aren't all that important, are they? All they do is create wordy documents destined to be made moot by Emperor George's signing statements.
What's more, I'm sure this'll all blow over as soon as it's proven (by FOX NEWS, Rush or Anal Annie) that the page in question is really a liberal plant who's also light in the loafers.
I see Foley emerging from "rehab" as a "recovering homosexual pedophile".
I see Foley on a TV screen with a caption that says, "Mark Foley -- Senior Fox News Family Values Analyst".
...I don't think Boehner had to do much to let Dennis know.
Where are you??? Go get 'em Rush. I an sure that you will want this man removed for his behavior. I think I'm sure. Maybe Foley will end up on Jeff Gannon's website. Or become an assistant to Karl.
These phony leaders of the Republican party should be ashamed of themselves but it wasn't one of their kids. Sen. Santorum, it is your time to show us your true mettle. Go after this guy. It could have been one of your kids. The main concern of the Cons is to protect their rear-ends and not worry about the 16 years olds.
When asked, Sen. Allen said "MACACA"
You know these 16-year-olds ought to know what they're getting into when they come to work at Congress. They can't be walking around the hallways in provocative clothing at all times of day, and expect not to get sexually explicit emails. It's common sense; it's not blame the victim. When you're that young and that impressionable, and you're around such powerful men, you get a little loopy. And then you're asking for trouble. Do the math. If you're 16 and you're a page in Congress, you're inviting trouble all day long. All day long. You're inviting predators. You might as well be wearing a sign. Come over here and take advantage of me. Send me explicit emails all day long. All day long.
Right? Otherwise, you know the litany.
is MMFA so upset about the Foley incident?
After all, it is a progressive website.
In Progressiveland, the state of Vermont, Foley could solicit a 16-year-old over the computer, have sex with a 16-year-old and marry a 16-year-old male.
MMFA should be upset that Foley is being driven out of office for something Progressives believe in.
Every defense attorney has a stuffed fish above his desk with the following written beneath it:
"I would never have gotten into trouble if I'd just kept my big mouth shut".
I guess I've already taken the bait.
Oh well.
is not whether or not we AGREE with the law (i'm personally opposed to a 16 year old age of consent for sex with a non-minor) - but the fact that the law was broken. it seems progressives are more willing to work WITHIN the system - even if they don't agree with a law. IGNORING the law, as your party is often liable to do (see geneva conventions/warrantless wiretapping/leaking confidential names of CIA informants) - is not an option. it's not like he doesn't know the laws - he was largely responsible for penning them. serious questions are likewise raised by the lack of response from republican leadership. please don't try to spin this, you will fail.
He doesnt know the difference between homosexuality and Pedophilia. I can't say I am suprised.
as in boner
First the laws of the various states would apply, pages state (LA) has an age of consent of 17, Mark Foley's state (FL) has an age of consent of 18, now the District does have an age of consent of 16, however, the true point here is not so much the e-mails, IM's and so forth, but that a GOP Rep. was under investigation for sexual misconduct and the sole Democrat on the committee responsible for the page's was never informed or allowed to participate in the investigation. One, could just imagine what your response would have been if a certain member of government's behavior with a certain inter, was only handled by that person's party, but then again never mind, Republicans have all of our best interests at heart so they never do anything evil.
you are just so adroit and amusing. Yes, liberals are sexual predators, murderers, druggies and all matter of scum. Oh darn....that's Republicans that are all those things. But they are projecting their paranoid closeted fantasies unto us. But one does need to have a bogeyman and the Republicans makes sure there are so many of them (what with the gays, liberals, environmentalists, scientists, democrats, et al), that you can't see the filth and criminals in your own party. But please stay in denial...it's so healthy.
there are many states that have lower standards of age requirement than Vermont. So you basically have no point.
You'll find that it doesn't do any good responding to anything that Leather writes. He's one of those drive by posters. He just loves stirring the pot, then running off. He's also famous for knowing what we believe in. He believes whatever the Ministry of Information at Fox News tells him to believe.
"But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother."
-George Orwell
why do they always have to LIE about it? Mistakes can be made (eg, G. Allen, giving him a break here). but when they lie about it, it shows their true character. Why not just admit "youthful indiscretions" and show you have beome and adult and learned from your mistakes?
I think the Foley thing may be huge among regular people, soccer moms, etc., because it is not esoteric, but an easily understandable issue. I don't blame people for speech -- that's not the American way (with some recognized exceptions to freedom of speech). But it is important nonetheless. And followup CONDUCT is the key.
In fairness (as a moderate, and veteran of too-quick-to-the-punch cable news --eg Karr, Condit, Atlanta Bomber, OK bombing, etc) I think we will have to wait until the facts come out. It may just be much worse than we presently know, with Foley, that is. And Hastert? To think that liar is 2 deaths away from the Presidency scares the living sh*t out of me. Absolute corruption. That's what it is.
I found this quote in a New Yorker article ([link to www.newyorker.com] )
“Parents today are rightfully worried about their children being abducted or abused, even in their own neighborhoods,” O’Reilly writes in “The No Spin Zone,” his 2001 book. “But why is that? Are there more child molesters in the United States now than in my childhood years in the fifties and sixties? Are they bolder for some reason? Is it possible they are being encouraged?” O’Reilly struggles for half a paragraph to support what he and his viewers are sure of—that sexual molestation is alarmingly on the rise—and finds scant data, but plows ahead anyway: “There is also something else in play in this country that is much subtler: the gradual contagion of nonjudgmental acceptance. The result of this contagion is that behavior that would have been roundly condemned forty years ago is now ‘understood’ or in some cases even accepted.”
I wonder if he'll finally catch the 'contagion'?