Barone falsely claimed St. Petersburg Times found alleged Foley emails "so innocuous as to be unworthy of publication"
SUMMARY: U.S. News & World Report senior writer Michael Barone claimed that the St. Petersburg Times concluded that emails then-Rep. Mark Foley allegedly sent to a former page in 2005 "were so innocuous as to be unworthy of publication." Contrary to Barone's claim, the Times stated that it assigned two reporters to the story and decided not to publish the emails not because they were "innocuous" but because the family of the former page did not want the matter explored further.
In his column for the October 16 edition of U.S. News & World Report, senior writer Michael Barone claimed that House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) "was right just to warn" then-Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) about his alleged communications with underage former congressional pages because The Miami Herald and the St. Petersburg Times "independently concluded" that the emails Foley allegedly sent to a former page in 2005 "were so innocuous as to be unworthy of publication." The Herald and the Times acknowledged receiving copies of the emails before the scandal broke on September 29, but in "A Note From the Editors," the Times -- contrary to Barone's claim -- stated that it assigned two reporters to the story but decided not to publish the emails because the family of the former page did not want the matter explored further. Specifically, the St. Petersburg Times, in an article about the scandal, quoted managing editor Stephen Buckley explaining the paper's decision:
"We didn't publish because the Louisiana teenager's parents did not want to pursue the issue, and because, despite our best efforts, we weren't able to track down any pages who had received inappropriate e-mails from the congressman. We didn't know about any sexually explicit exchanges between Rep. Foley and any former pages until the instant messages became public on Friday."
As Media Matters for America noted, the Herald's executive editor and an October 3 Herald editorial described the emails as "innocuous" in explaining why they did not publish them, but neither mentioned an email in which Foley allegedly referred to another page as being "in really great shape."
From Barone's column in the October 16 edition of U.S. News & World Report:
It is time to take seriously the possibility that the Democrats will assume control of the House of Representatives in the elections next month. The breaking of the Mark Foley scandal on the last day of the congressional session -- Who held on to the incriminating instant messages until this strategic delivery date? -- put the Republican leadership on the defensive and changed the political landscape. Speaker Dennis Hastert was right just to warn Foley off communicating with former pages when informed in 2005 of the "over friendly" E-mails that the St. Petersburg Times and Miami Herald independently concluded were so innocuous as to be unworthy of publication.
Is the phony outrage and posturing from the troglodytes because someone allegedly "sat on" this information until right before the election. Well, boo-hoo! This is the world your boy Karl Rove hath made, Republicans. Enjoy it!
I suppose the idea of this happening to their own children seems alright, and "why is this such a big deal" kind of attitude, and just jump right into a conspiracy of Democrats un-named that just lured this out into the opening.
I wonder if there are enough Republicans whom will vote this November that are that stupid.
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
In an older post that most likely nobody will go back to, there was some of that coming out, which prompted my similar thoughts:
What amazing irony to see the above posters wringing their hands over Democrats being willing to use a sex scandal to seize control of an flailing, injured government that was made topheavy by the elimination of checks and balances. Remember 80 million dollars spent and Kenneth Starr throwing up his hands in defeat because he could find -in his words - "no evidence" of wrongdoing on any of the dozens of investigation subjects issued by a republican party, before Kristol and Scaithe and their ilke successfully demanded that he return to the drawing table and play the sex card? Not the Monica card, the Paula Jones card...the one they had already played once to win the '94 majority that let them get enough Republicans in office to obliterate the record for congressionally spawned investigations of any prior oval office. Why do you think Bush was so desperate to get the immunity bill for war crimes past during this session of Congress? He saw the handwriting on the wall...the handwriting taught by his own party. Read a little. Or at least, read a little more.
Barone: "Speaker Dennis Hastert was right just to warn Foley off communicating with former pages when informed in 2005 of the "over friendly" E-mails..."
Excuese me, Mr Barone, but didn't Speaker Hastert say that he had no recollection of being warned about Foley in 2005? Didn't Hatert say it wasn't until this past Spring (2006) that he was told about the e-mails? This is why some of us have a problem with Hastert, Mr. Barone... Republican leaders say they informed Hastert of things and yet Hastert conveniently has no recollection. When the
When the Republicans finally get their stories straight, Mr. Barone, then come back and we'll listen to what you have to say.
a Republican Congressman's dog bites you. His defense would go something like this...
1. My dog doesn't bite.
2. My dog didn't bite YOU.
3. My dog may have bitten you, but it didn't break the skin.
4. I don't even have a dog.
It's more like...
1. Republican politician: I'm shocked, and I'm going to look into that dog issue.
2. Republican pundits say all at once: What do you have against dogs? His dog doesn't bite, and if it did, it wasn't you, and even if it did, it didn't break the skin, and aren't all dogs killers anyway? And many DEMOCRATS own dogs! wink, wink, nudge, nudge
Steps 2 is repeated for years until a core of people believe you were attacked by a liberal dog of the "democrat" party.
5. We shouldn't rush to any conclusions before all the facts are in. We support an investigation to find out the facts.
6. We can't comment during an ongoing investigation.
Investigation fades into the mists of time. Repeat 6 endlessly.
Sorry, I don't know what you're talking about. I've been under my bed ever since Fox news switched to North Korean Nuke hysterics.
Why, suddenly Foley doesn't seem very important.Except to America-haters like you.
because all the facts aren't in, HBL. There's an investigation going on right now, so I can't comment.
I've read those emails and I can assure you that if any of my underage teenage kids received those emails from someone in his 50s I would not be taking them lightly. They were cautiously worded, but they plainly suggested more than a casual, friendly interest in those kids. I would not have let it continue.
The GOP response to the Foley scandal reminds me of the best light bulb joke ever...
Q: How many Bush Administration officials does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A: None. There is nothing wrong with the light bulb. It's improving every day. Any reports of its lack of incandescence are a delusional spin from the liberal media. That light bulb has served honorably, and anything you say undermines the lighting effect. Why do you hate freedom?
Are you a troll? this joke sounds like you believe the bush administration has done nothin wrong... I assure you he did.
I'm a 'troll' because you didn't get the joke? And I assure you, you DID NOT!
I'm perplexed at how you arrived at such a backwards conclusion. I've heard and told this joke in liberal circles almost since W took office, and you're the first to not get it.
If there are any other posters out there that don't get it who don't resort to name calling, I'll gladly explain.
Geez, and it's such a GOOD joke...
He/She is a 'conservative' after all.