Despite numerous rebuttals from conservatives, media continue to describe Foley emails as "over friendly"
SUMMARY: Numerous news outlets have continued to uncritically report House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert's description of the emails Rep. Mark Foley allegedly sent to a 16-year-old former congressional page as "over friendly" and, in some cases, have themselves adopted his characterization.
In recent days, numerous conservatives and Republicans have rebutted House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert's (R-IL) description of the emails Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) allegedly sent to a 16-year-old former congressional page as "over friendly." These lawmakers and media figures have pointed out that the string of emails, which was provided to the Republican leadership in late 2005, was "not normal," "not innocent," and "had predator stamped all over it." Nonetheless, several news outlets have continued to uncritically report Hastert's downplaying of the emails' content and, in some cases, have themselves adopted his characterization.
On September 29, Foley abruptly resigned from Congress after ABC News first reported that he had engaged in an inappropriate email correspondence in the summer of 2005 with an underage male page. In these emails allegedly sent by Foley, he requested a photograph of the teenager and wrote of another underage male page: "[H]es [sic] in really great shape." ABC News subsequently disclosed more explicit instant messages that Foley had allegedly sent to another former page in 2003.
The news of Foley's resignation was followed by a series of shifting and contradictory explanations from Republican House leaders regarding what they previously knew of Foley's alleged behavior and when they learned of it. On September 30, Hastert finally released a statement explaining that Rep. Rodney Alexander (R-LA) had first learned of the alleged email communications between Foley and the former page in the fall of 2005, after the recipient forwarded the emails -- which he described as "sick, sick, sick" -- to an Alexander aide. When Alexander advised Hastert's staff of the issue, they told him to bring the matter to the attention of then-House clerk Jeff Trandahl, who subsequently informed Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL), chairman of the House Page Board. Trandahl and Shimkus then confronted Foley about the emails and requested that he cease communication with the minor in question.
In both this statement and his September 30 letter to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales requesting a Department of Justice investigation, Hastert asserted that the alleged email correspondence between Foley and the page was "determined to be 'over friendly' by Representative Alexander's office but was not sexual in nature."
Numerous media outlets initially reported, without challenge, Hastert's description of the 2005 emails as simply "over friendly," as Media Matters for America noted. But several conservatives and Republicans have since objected to this characterization of the emails and have argued that they should have provoked deeper scrutiny from the GOP House leadership when they first came to light:
- "Late yesterday afternoon, Mr. Hastert insisted that he learned of the most flagrant instant-message exchange from 2003 only last Friday, when it was reported by ABC News. This is irrelevant. The original e-mail messages were warning enough that a predator ... could be prowling the halls of Congress. The matter wasn't pursued aggressively. It was barely pursued at all." ("Resign, Mr. Speaker," Washington Times editorial, 10/3/06)
- "I don't think it would pass the sniff test. ... Even asking those questions -- that is not normal between a 52-year-old adult and a 16-year-old. ... It's not like they're family friends or anything. I think it would raise some serious questions." (Rep. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), quoted in the Los Angeles Times, 10/3/06)
- "This thing should have been looked into months ago. ... That's abnormal for a 52-year-old man having those kinds of e-mails going to a 16-year-old child." (Rep. Walter B. Jones Jr. (R-NC), quoted in The Washington Post, 10/3/06)
- "Hastert's office said aides referred the matter to the proper authorities last fall but they were only told the messages were 'over-friendly.' In other words, they did no investigating because they didn't want to know the truth. An election was coming, and Republicans were hoping to hold their slim majority in a tough contest this year." (Joseph Farah, editor and CEO of WorldNetDaily, 10/3/06)
- "Any member of Congress who knew about Foley's inappropriate actions before the recent flood of news coverage, and failed to take meaningful action, should resign. And let's be clear, the 'overly friendly' communications that the House leadership has admitted to knowing about are not innocent and should not be downplayed. All of Foley's reported communications were inappropriate and perhaps illegal." (Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton, press release, 10/2/06)
- "I know one thing: That e-mail they call an 'overly friendly e-mail' -- that had predator stamped all over it. No one in this country can suggest otherwise. You're in a leadership position. You have a colleague you know is at least a potential predator, and we have the pages coming through his office every day? They had an obligation, that same day, to investigate him further." (Conservative commentator Bay Buchanan, CNN's The Situation Room, 10/2/06)
But even as these conservatives have rebutted Hastert's characterization of the emails, many reporters have continued to uncritically repeat Hastert's characterization of them as "over friendly." For instance, on the October 3 edition of CNN Newsroom, congressional correspondent Joe Johns reported that "one question now being asked is whether House leaders, who first learned of a so-called over-friendly email from Foley to a former page months ago, had a duty to do more than simply tell Foley to cease all communications with the former page." In other cases, reporters have noted both Hastert's description of the emails and the former page's description of them as "sick" but did not inform their viewers or listeners of the actual content of the messages:
- On the October 2 edition of CNN Newsroom, correspondent Bob Franken reported that, after Alexander learned of "what the page called 'sick' e-mails he had received from Foley," the concerns regarding his behavior were "shared over the next few months with the top echelon of the GOP in the House, including Hastert's office. They reached a consensus that Mark Foley's e-mails were merely, quote, 'over friendly.' And Foley was warned to end all communications with the page and to be careful about his contacts."
- On the October 2 edition of National Public Radio's Day to Day, congressional correspondent Brian Naylor reported that congressional Republican leaders thought the emails -- "which the page had characterized as sick" -- were "overly friendly." Host Alex Chadwick earlier noted that Hastert "said he knew about overly friendly e-mails that Mr. Foley was sending to these pages, but not the explicit instant messages that turned up later."
Some other reporters downplayed the content of the emails by describing them as "overly friendly" or even "chatty" in their own words:
- On the October 2 edition of Fox News' Special Report, Fortune magazine Washington bureau chief Nina Easton described the emails as "overly friendly but not sexually suggestive."
- In an October 3 article, USA Today staff writer Kathy Kiely reported that "Hastert said House officials had no reason to press further when Foley explained a chatty e-mail to a 16-year-old boy in which the representative requested the former House page's photograph. That e-mail caused the boy's parents to complain, but it contained nothing sexually explicit."
From the October 2 edition of CNN Newsroom:
FRANKEN: The Republican leaders, in particular House Speaker Dennis Hastert, were trying to not get hopelessly entangled in questions about how they handled the Foley matter. Hastert's aides were notified in the fall of 2005 by Louisiana Republican Congressman Rodney Alexander that a page he had sponsored complained about what the page called "sick" emails he had received from Foley. The information was shared over the next few months with the top echelon of the GOP in the House, including Hastert's office. They reached a consensus that Mark Foley's emails were merely, quote, "over friendly." And Foley was warned and all communications with the page and to be careful about his contacts.
From the October 2 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume:
BRIT HUME (host): Well Nina, what about what they knew and when they knew it, and what they did or didn't do and what about how long this all lasts -- your thoughts?
EASTON: Well, clearly the pages knew about -- this was -- back to 2002-2003. It went up to the leadership ranks in 2005, as far as we know, through the campaign operative for the Republicans, which -- Tom Reynolds -- which is what the Democrats now are making hay about. Went to Hastert's office last Fall, and I think what Hastert's trying to do here is make a distinction between emails, which both he and a newspapers that looked at considered overly friendly but not sexually suggestive, and these IMs.
From the October 3 edition of CNN Newsroom:
JOHNS: And now, after Mark Foley's resignation, the focus is on his alleged words written in cyberspace, the raunchy instant messages that sent a shudder through the Congress last week.
REP. JOHN SHIMKUS (R-IL) [video clip]: The instant messages Mark Foley reportedly sent to a former page are deplorable.
JOHNS: But one question now being asked is whether House leaders, who first learned of a so-called over-friendly email from Foley to a former page months ago, had a duty to do more than simply tell Foley to cease all communications with the former page.
From the October 2 edition of NPR's Day to Day:
CHADWICK: Now, last week, Speaker Hastert said he knew nothing about the emails, and then later he said he knew about overly friendly emails that Mr. Foley was sending to these pages, but not the explicit instant messages that turned up later. So just go over the -- kind of the chronology here.
NAYLOR: Yeah, the page involved was sponsored as -- they're all sponsored by their local members of Congress. In this case it was Congressman Rodney Alexander of Louisiana. And the page's family went to Alexander and told him about the emails from Foley, which the page had characterized as sick. Alexander then went to Tom Reynolds [R-NY], who is the chairman of the House Republican Campaign Committee [sic]. Reynolds says he told Hastert and other members of congressional leadership, Republican leadership. Hastert says he doesn't have a specific recollection of this but that he doesn't dispute Reynolds. Congressional leaders thought the emails were, as you say, overly friendly, and Foley was told to end the communications.
And there it sat for several months, until the revelations of more sexually explicit exchanges, apparently sent to another former page, were revealed last week. And all the while, Alex, as you say, Foley remained as chairman of the Congressional Missing and Exploited Children's Caucus.

















A 52-year-old man making blatant sexual come-ons to teenagers is disgusting. Terms like "disgusting," or "creepy," or "pedophile" don't reflect well on the Party. Hmmm, Karl, how will you whitewash it?
Just make it into a good thing.
"Friendly" is a good thing. Everybody likes friendly people.
Foley was just a little too friendly. A little over-friendly. Overly friendly. Too much of a good thing. Can't really fault him for that.
Only those mean Democrats would make a big deal out of somebody who was simply providing a tiny bit too much of something that everybody agrees is a good thing.
Is that how the reasoning went, Karl?
...like 'friendly fire'.
can explicit emails such as these be considered only as "overly friendly".........SICK!!
I'm a father of three girls....and if these emails were part and parcel done toward them......
Understand that I'm a very laod back, easy going kind of dad. Don't get me wrong, I can get angry, but if Foley or any one for that matter were emailing my teenage daughters with this type of language and inuendo......
I'd have my baseball bat at the ready and shove it so far up that persons butt it would tickle their throat!!
All the defending of this man is coming from those that went after Clinton for "doing it" with an intern (who by the way WAS 23). Yes, the affair was wrong, but she was AN ADULT!!! There is absolutely NO COMPARRISON!!!
Don't even start with Barney Franks.........while wrong for what he did.......the guy he did it with.....WAS AN ADULT!!!
What is it with the GOP stalking kids or hurting kids or projecting their....whatever toward kids? Is it some kind of sick perversion that only the GOP power elites are invited to join in on?
Every one of you "average joe conservatives" in here should be demanding that all of those involved be forced out now and you all should try to reclaim your 'conservative' values from these sick sycophants!
I can't imagine anyone not part of their little group could possibly defend this crap! But whatever........
I am cautiously optimistic that the Republican party is about to devour itself. Watching them try to spin this thing has been absolutely fascinating. It's ironic that the one thing that may undo their web of lies turns out to be a sex scandal...the party of family values, Bible thumping, anti-gay-rights, one-nation-under-God hypocrisy laid low by a sex scandal with gay overtones. Getting thousands of people killed in an unnecessary war wasn't enough, but a Congressman diddling around with underage boys may finally bring them down.
You gotta love it!
Your cynical pleasure in all of this is a little unsettling. But I give you credit for being honest, nonetheless.
I don't agree however, this isn't good for either party, or more importantly, our country. I want to vote for a candidate and a party because of what they stand for, their ideas, their principles, their honesty and their goals and vision for our country. I do not want to vote for a candidate or a party by default, or because the opposing party has some sex scandal in it's midst.
Let those responsible be held accountable so we can get back to important issues we need addressed for all of our benefit.
However, our political system has been so corrupted and contaminated by the Republican spin machine that a true statesman would be eaten alive. Before we can fix the system, we have to get the government out of Republican hands. Divided government looks pretty good right now. If a sickening little sex scandal is what it takes, then so be it.
Forgive my glee, but I remember sitting there night after night as the "liberal media" ate the Clinton administration alive over his affair with Monica. Now these same people are turning themselves into pretzels trying to defend a Congressman who has a taste for teenage boys. Sorry, but the irony and hypocrisy is just more than I can bear.
...under the circumstances, and they are overwhelming circumstances as this party and there propaganda ministers and spinmeisters seem to get traction from ALMOST anything. While its not how we want to win, we must win. We'll take a free one. Time to move on at any cost, within reason.
Its about time these chickenhawks felt some heat. I can't wait to see the Grand Old Pedophile Party kicked out of office. Let the investigations roll.
ROFLMAO
Nerzog:"the party of family values, Bible thumping, anti-gay-rights, one-nation-under-God hypocrisy laid low by a sex scandal with gay overtones."
Show some intelligence. That quote is borderline moronic. Is the liberal movement a party of anti-family values, God hating, anti-anyone-else rights, one nation for themselves laid low by many of there own sex scandles regardless of gay tones party? I would like to think not but you make it appear as such. Tommy said it nicely although indirectly, we need to be bipartisan in our views. I'm bipartisan & I watch the news, listen to radio, read blogs on the web, & watch things for myself on youtube. Foley is gone, it's over with. Anyting else found thru investigation will be tapped. Finding enjoyment out of this is not a good thing & is as rather tasteless as the acts of which Foley behaved.
I've been listening to the Right Wing smear machine for fifteen years as they have lied about liberals. I watched them harass and virtually destroy the Clinton presidency in the name of partisanship. Now I'm watching them attempt to dismantle our constitutional protections one small piece at a time in the pursuit of....what...power? Wealth? You tell me. I'm watching them throw fine young Americans and BILLIONS of dollars down a rathole in Iraq just to save Puddinhead George's ego. If this scandal brings down these Bible thumping hypocrites before they can establish their corporate theocracy, the country will owe Foley a medal.
Hell, yes, I'm enjoying this.
Nerzog: Everything that you can say about the "Right wing Smear Machine" I can give you an example of the left wing doing the same. Anyways, you're so wound up about it that you're missing my point. If you wanna go "titt for tattt" with me I can but I wont. That's my point, stop playing "blame games". The only finger pointing that should be done is at our selves. I am bipartisan. I see both sides going to extremes & if you are on one extreme you cancel your self out. What's the common word in left-wing extremist & right-wing extremist? Duh, the word extreme. Stop with the excuses already. You wanna talk about "rathole in Iraq" & "Puddinhead George's ego"? I am a former vet & I have friends there in Iraq. I am very grateful we are in Iraq. I don't have to worry about my 3 yr. old son getting blown up while he is outside playing unlike over there where the terrorists don't care about who gets hurt. As for soldiers, don't insult us by saying "Bush is killing our troops". We have intelligence, we took the oath under our own decision knowing well where we'd go. I served under Clinton. Remmember Black Hawk Down & Somalia? Our soldiers died but again, we served knowingly of the possibilities. Watch what you say about "bible thumping hypocrites" unless you your self is innocent of any hypocrisy (I know your not, who isn't to some degree). Alot of stuff taught in the bible is present in all religion so unless you are willing to call all persons of religion "hypocrites" don't say it at all. It's really sad that one takes joy in someones elses mistakes when there should be human compassion for we are all in the same boat. That goes for both sides.
MB: "The trick is to mobilize your base (through fear by demonizing your opponent)". What are the extreme wing of democrats doing right now! Using the word pediophile when Foley hasn't even been convicted of that. Tisk-tisk. About Katrina, I live in Baton Rouge & was here for Katrina. I have family that lost everything from Grands Isle. to the Mississippi Coast. I saw everything first hand. The Gov. Blanco & the Mayor of N.O. Nagin our far more responsible than I hear acknowleged. The "Bushies" weren't the only ones responsible for creating the rift in bipartisanship, both sides are. So to say that the republicans are at fault & or the democrats are at fault is a waste of everybodies time. There needs to be unity. Bipartisanship is that unity. This spotlight you talk of... the democrats are just as guilty of. What was his name... Sneeds or something.
Nerzog: Everything that you can say about the "Right wing Smear Machine" I can give you an example of the left wing doing the same. Anyways, you're so wound up about it that you're missing my point. If you wanna go "titt for tatt" with me I can but I wont. That's my point, stop playing "blame games". The only finger pointing that should be done is at our selves. I am bipartisan. I see both sides going to extremes & if you are on one extreme you cancel your self out. What's the common word in left-wing extremist & right-wing extremist? Duh, the word extreme. Stop with the excuses already. You wanna talk about "rathole in Iraq" & "Puddinhead George's ego"? I am a former vet & I have friends there in Iraq. I am very grateful we are in Iraq. I don't have to worry about my 3 yr. old son getting blown up while he is outside playing unlike over there where the terrorists don't care about who gets hurt. As for soldiers, don't insult us by saying "Bush is killing our troops". We have intelligence, we took the oath under our own decision knowing well where we'd go. I served under Clinton. Remmember Black Hawk Down & Somalia? Our soldiers died but again, we served knowingly of the possibilities. Watch what you say about "bible thumping hypocrites" unless you your self is innocent of any hypocrisy (I know your not, who isn't to some degree). Alot of stuff taught in the bible is present in all religion so unless you are willing to call all persons of religion "hypocrites" don't say it at all. It's really sad that one takes joy in someones elses mistakes when there should be human compassion for we are all in the same boat. That goes for both sides.
MB: "The trick is to mobilize your base (through fear by demonizing your opponent)". What are the extreme wing of democrats doing right now! Using the word pediophile when Foley hasn't even been convicted of that. Tisk-tisk. About Katrina, I live in Baton Rouge & was here for Katrina. I have family that lost everything from Grands Isle. to the Mississippi Coast. I saw everything first hand. The Gov. Blanco & the Mayor of N.O. Nagin our far more responsible than I hear acknowleged. The "Bushies" weren't the only ones responsible for creating the rift in bipartisanship, both sides are. So to say that the republicans are at fault & or the democrats are at fault is a waste of everybodies time. There needs to be unity. Bipartisanship is that unity. This spotlight you talk of... the democrats are just as guilty of. What was his name... Sneeds or something.
Nerzog: Everything that you can say about the "Right wing Smear Machine" I can give you an example of the left wing doing the same. Anyways, you're so wound up about it that you're missing my point. If you wanna go "titt for tatt" with me I can but I won't. That's my point, stop playing "blame games". The only finger pointing that should be done is at our selves. I am bipartisan. I see both sides going to extremes & if you are on one extreme you cancel your self out. What's the common word in left-wing extremist & right-wing extremist? Duh, the word extreme. Stop with the excuses already. You wanna talk about "rathole in Iraq" & "Puddinhead George's ego"? I am a former vet & I have friends there in Iraq. I am very grateful we are in Iraq. I don't have to worry about my 3 yr. old son getting blown up while he is outside playing unlike over there where the terrorists don't care about who gets hurt. As for soldiers, don't insult us by saying "Bush is killing our troops". We have intelligence, we took the oath under our own decision knowing well where we'd go. I served under Clinton. Remmember Black Hawk Down & Somalia? Our soldiers died but again, we served knowingly of the possibilities. Watch what you say about "bible thumping hypocrites" unless you your self is innocent of any hypocrisy (I know your not, who isn't to some degree). Alot of stuff taught in the bible is present in all religion so unless you are willing to call all persons of religion "hypocrites" don't say it at all. It's really sad that one takes joy in someones elses mistakes when there should be human compassion for we are all in the same boat. That goes for both sides.
MB: "The trick is to mobilize your base (through fear by demonizing your opponent)". What are the extreme wing of democrats doing right now! Using the word pediophile when Foley hasn't even been convicted of that. Tisk-tisk. About Katrina, I live in Baton Rouge & was here for Katrina. I have family that lost everything from Grands Isle. to the Mississippi Coast. I saw everything first hand. The Gov. Blanco & the Mayor of N.O. Nagin our far more responsible than I hear acknowleged. The "Bushies" weren't the only ones responsible for creating the rift in bipartisanship, both sides are. So to say that the republicans are at fault & or the democrats are at fault is a waste of everybodies time. There needs to be unity. Bipartisanship is that unity. This spotlight you talk of... the democrats are just as guilty of. What was his name... Sneeds or something.
My bad for posting this 3 times. I didn't mean to, lol!!
"we need to be bipartisan in our views". Well that is easy for the republicans to say when they control all 3 divisions of government and the supreme court to boot. Karl Rove is the founder of this modern day partianship, so if you have a gripe write him a letter. He realized that only a small portion of the country swings, the trick is to mobilize your base (through fear by demonizing your opponent). 9-11 and Katrina are times for bipartianship, and the country was by and large, absolutely for 9-11. You do remember what the Bushies did with all that bipartianship dont you? This needs to have a continued spotlight on it, it is not over. It is not the lead story on my TV news. My only concern is if these pages pictures start showing up in the news.
Foley is just the beginning of the Pedophile Party's downfall. I am enjoying it immensely.
Just like that overly friendly letter full of powder that Keith Olbermann got. Yeah, Republicans are the party of luv...
Ummmm......David Brock.....ummmm....'scuse me... u there????? FOX News O'Reilly Factor labelled Foley a Democrat on at least 3 separate occassions (not a mistake) [link to www.bradblog.com]
Good find. I'm surprised that's not on the front page. So scandalous. How can you make a mistake like that? Inexecusable.
*inexcusable
What's the position of Republican Pedophiles in general on the Iraq War and the War on Terror?
I kid. oh, no wait!
But seriously, Republicans are and always will be a house of cards because they never had "family values" in the first place, just rhetoric for "not in public" values.
Cheney's Daughter. Rove's Father. Bush daughters' drinking, their father's Coke habit. Yep, those family values make the Clintons/Gores/Kerrys look like the freakin' Cleavers.
You are correct. Their whole political empire is built on a house of cards. The country club Republicans have formed a dishonest alliance with Christofascist evangelicals, without whom they cannot win national elections. It has worked well, but they are playing the troglodytes for suckers, dangling abortion, school prayer, and gay marriage in front of them like red capes in front of a bull.
I wish I could find the quote, but William F. Buckley pretty much admitted this years ago, stating that religion was useful for "keeping the ignorant masses in line".
Yesturday, speaker Hastert told Rush Limbaugh, that the release of this information about Foley, was released by the democrats, for political reasons. Or something to the effect that this is a left wing liberal conspiracy.
I have one question. When was Dennis Hastert going to let us (the people ) know about it ?
He has apparently known about it for a while, and he hasnt let us (the people ) know about it. I wonder why !
Oh, I do have one more question . What democrat, decided to put Foley in charge of drafting legislation to protect kids from "child predators". (sarcsm ends )
Wouldnt it be a better idea to have someone not attempting to molest kids do that ?
Maybe we can get one of the custodians of truth over at Foxnews or MSNBC to ask these questions ?
Yeah, when monkeys fly out of .......
never mind.
...is pretty amusing regarding this Foley scandal.
Last night, even Dick Morris was telling Hannity he was full of crap regarding his ridiculous claims that Democrats somehow withheld reports of Foley's contact with pages, and decided to spring it on them now for political purposes. Never mind this story dates back prior to 2004...
Listening to El Drugbo wildly spin the story yesterday was even more pathetic.
It's so funny how "The Party of Personal Responsibility" ducks for cover when actual responsibility needs to be addressed.
You don't tell someone to 'stop all contact' with a young boy, and tell him to 'stop all contact' with all pages because you are worried that someone is 'over-friendly.' You do it because you feel he is a danger.
You are negligent in your oversight of those who are in your care if you don't investigate further. As someone else said earlier, we can have an emergency session of congress for Terry Schiavo, but we can't follow up on this danger to high school juniors.
Thanks for the lesson in values.
"over friendly..."
isn't this just the modern-day equivalent of "what the meaning of 'is' is?" Republicants wouldn't have any of that, so why should they (or we) accept this wordplay from Hastert?
own up - you guys screwed up in a big way...
maybe hes living a fantasy world. but sexual im's with people over age IS NOT AGAINST THE LAW
After all, the brighter trolls are avoiding this issue like it was last month's bag of spinach.
im's arent [sic] physical contact
No one ever said it was. That's a badly-constructed straw man.
maybe hes living a fantasy world. but sexual im's with people over age IS NOT AGAINST THE LAW
Properly rewritten, your sentence would be: "Maybe he's living in a fantasy world. But sexual IM's with people over age is not against the law.
So much for the punctuation and grammar. (After all, how are you going to get your ideas across if you can't write properly?) Now for the problems with facts and logic.
First of all, sixteen years old is not over age. If it were, it would be just another of many sex scandals that weren't big enough to lose a politician his job. I.e., if it's not against the law, then why did he resign?
And second, the Republicans hold themselves up as morally superior, and as such, must avoid even the gray areas when it comes to improper behavior, or suffer the consequences. They set the bar, and if they don't meet it, that's their problem.