Tuesday, October 03, 2006

Some Conservatives Attack Hastert For Not Taking Action Against Foley

Three prominent conservatives suggested yesterday that House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) failed miserably as a leader in not being proactive in dealing with disgraced former Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL).

First, talk show host Michael Reagan and Citizens United President David Bossie called on Hastert to resign immediately for covering up Foley’s inappropriate behavior.

“Speaker Hastert had knowledge of Congressman Foley’s inappropriate behavior and chose to protect a potential pedophile and powerful colleague over a congressional page,” Bossie wrote in a press release. “This inaction demonstrates a lack of leadership on Speaker Hastert’s part, and calls into question both his judgment and character. If Speaker Hastert was willing to sacrifice a child to protect Rep. Foley’s seat and his own leadership position, then he surely does not share our American and conservative values.”

In the same release, Reagan says: “Any member of Congress who was aware of the sexual emails and protected the congressman should also resign effective immediately."

***

Separately, in an interview yesterday afternoon on CNN, pundit Bay Buchanan said that the email that Hastert was informed about — and described as “overly friendly” — “had predator stamped all over it."

Transcript:

CNN'S JOHN KING: (A) member of the leadership team came to the speaker months ago, says he told him about this questionable one e-mail exchange. not a sexual one of nature but a questionable e-mail exchange in which then Congressman Foley asked a 16-year-old to send him a picture. That is red flag for pedophilia and inappropriate conduct. The Speaker says he doesn’t dispute Mr. Reynolds told him that but he can’t recall that conversation. What does that say about the speaker?

BUCHANAN: I tell you what, I don’t know who knew what when and who is remembering correctly. 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, to call in the FBI, if that was an appropriate action and also to call in those pages and make certain every one of them was interviewed to see if there is any problems here that goes deeper than what they already knew. They failed the parents of this country is what they did.

***

Is this a sign of things to come?

Something tells me that between now and Election Day, we'll be hearing other prominent Christian conservatives and "family values" Republican groups speak out against Republican "leaders" who knew about Foley's e-mail exchanges with 16-year-old pages for months -- Hastert, House Majority Leader John Boehner and Rep. Thomas Reynolds (R-NY), chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee.

24 Comments:

Anonymous trinity said...

Geeez Louise! It's like I'm living in bizarro world or something. Just from reading the quotes from Bossie and Reagan, it seems pretty evident that they have the mistaken impression (gee I wonder why?) that Hastert had been aware of Foley's salacious IMs all along, and not just the ambiguous e-mails to the 16 year old page. The media's reporting of this story has been atrocious! And they go to journalism school for this? What a disgrace!

“Speaker Hastert had knowledge of Congressman Foley’s inappropriate behavior and chose to protect a potential pedophile and powerful colleague over a congressional page,” said David Bossie, president of conservative advocacy group Citizens United.

Joining Bossie’s call for Hastert to resign was nationally syndicated radio show host Michael Reagan.

“Any member of Congress who was aware of the sexual emails and protected the congressman should also resign effective immediately,” Reagan said.

1:16 AM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Separately, in an interview yesterday afternoon on CNN, pundit Bay Buchanan said that the email that Hastert was informed about — and described as “overly friendly” — “had predator stamped all over it."

I like Bay Buchanan, but I think she might be engaging in a little Monday morning quarterbacking here herself.

Unlike Hastert, we all have the advantage of reading the e-mails after having already been made aware of the sexual nature of Foley's IMs.

Unless there is some real rock-solid evidence that would show that Hastert knew about Foley's dark side but chose to look the other way for political reasons, I think it's absurd to attack his integrity this way.

1:29 AM  
Anonymous trinity said...

David R. Mark asks...
"Is this a sign of things to come?"


You guys can only hope, and I know you do. ;)

1:32 AM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

Actually, Trinity, I think the point being made is that the emails were indeed inappropriate and enough of a red flag to call for someone to do something. In addition, we have Boner and Reynolds each saying they talked to Hastert or his staff, and not enough was done over a period of several months.

9:36 AM  
Anonymous rob of wilmington, del. said...

agreed. the e-mails, in which a 50something Congressman asked a 16-year-old boy for a photo of himself, and commented on the physique of a male friend, should have set off alarms.

a principal would have been chastised if one of the male teachers had had similar e-mail exchanges with a 16-year-old student.

10:34 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Cant wait for all the other pages to come out of the woodwork with stories to tell.

11:34 AM  
Anonymous alias: "cutiepie" johnson said...

The LA Times has a story today about a page saying that in 1995, pages were warned about Foley.

This is getting ugly.

12:26 PM  
Anonymous Charles said...

Anonymous, will the Democrats involved with the pages resign? Or will they go on to retire like Gerry Studds who called a press conference and demanded privacy for his 'own business'. Studds went on to be re-elected for years. Where was the moral outraged against a man who was having a homosexual relationship with a 17 year old boy in his home?

12:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Um Charles, I never said anything about Republican or Democrat. As a matter of fact I am a conservative who happens to think more pages will be coming forward. I just dont know which party they will blame.

12:50 PM  
Anonymous Angelina's Evil Twin said...

Of course, Charles is SPECULATING that MAGICALLY a page will indict a Democrat. And please, BRING UP GERRY STUDDS, even if it means skipping over Rep. Crane (R-IL) and Sen. Bob Packwood (R-ORE) and ALL OTHER REPUBLICANS WHO HAVE COMMITTED WRONGDOING OVER THE YEARS.

Anything to move the focus off the GOP, Foley, and THOSE WHO KNEW ABOUT FOLEY'S PREDATOR NATURE AND DID NOTHING.

That about sums it up, right Charles?

1:09 PM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

Where was the moral outraged against a man who was having a homosexual relationship with a 17 year old boy in his home?

Well, I was 10 at the time. So I didn't have much moral outrage then for anything save maybe the Ewoks. But I would think he should have resigned, as should Rep. Crane, and as Foley did. Dickering around with someone underage? Not cool in any context. But I don't see a load of people out there defending Stubbs today, do I?

1:29 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

rob of wilmington, del. said...
"a principal would have been chastised if one of the male teachers had had similar e-mail exchanges with a 16-year-old student.



And Foley WAS, Rob. Congressman Tom Reynolds discussed the e-mails that Foley sent to the 16 year old with Hastert.

Louisiana Congressman Rodney Alexander also brought the e-mails to the leadership's attention after the boy's family said they wanted Foley not to have further contact with their son.

Illinois Congressman John Shimkus investigated the e-mail issue in 2005 after it was reviewed by Hastert's office as well as office of the Clerk of the House. He advised Foley to break off all contact with this boy, as well as any other male pages, and everyone thought that was the end of it.

The boy's family also expressed their explicit wish not to have anything publicized with regard to their son, whom I believe may be gay himself. So that was the extent of the matter.

Those e-mails from 2005 were also sent to newspapers by "some" interested party, (read Democrat) but the newspapers didn't feel there was anything incriminating or newsworthy in them either, so they didn't report on them.

The Democrats can try to make political hay out of all this, but Foley was the guilty party, and Foley is gone. That the Dems are attempting to take out as many other Republicans as they can at the same time, is nothing shocking.

For conservatives to point out that this is a blatant double standard is absolutely a very valid point to make, since Dems could care less about these matters (or any other ethical breaches) when it affects one of their own party. They just do not have any credibility on things like that.

And for those here who are trying to bully people into not citing examples that prove the phoniness of their "outrage" on this issue, I for one will not be cowed into keeping silent on the glaring hypocrisy of the left. Your outrage is a bit too selective for me to take seriously.

1:41 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Dave G. said...
"But I don't see a load of people out there defending Stubbs today, do I?"


Doesn't much matter what people are saying today, Dave. Talk is cheap. It's how they refused to do the right thing back then.

Not only did Stubbs turn his back on the House when they read the censure, but he also held a press conference together with his young "friend" and told everyone to butt out, that it was their own personal business, and his party allowed him to get away with that.

1:48 PM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

Illinois Congressman John Shimkus investigated the e-mail issue in 2005 after it was reviewed by Hastert's office as well as office of the Clerk of the House. He advised Foley to break off all contact with this boy, as well as any other male pages, and everyone thought that was the end of it.

So they discussed the emails. That's as far as it went? That's not enough. And they knew about this for months without doing anything about it until it blew up in their faces. You can't tell me that was responsible.

The Democrats can try to make political hay out of all this, but Foley was the guilty party, and Foley is gone.
The Washington Times is among the conservatives calling for Hastert to resign. This isn't just Democrats saying this.

For conservatives to point out that this is a blatant double standard is absolutely a very valid point to make, since Dems could care less about these matters (or any other ethical breaches) when it affects one of their own party. They just do not have any credibility on things like that.
Baloney. As I said in another post, we've got 3 Congressmen who were implicated in such a scandal over the past 33 years. Two of them, one Dem, one GOPer, did not resign. This one did. We're not talking about a lot of data here. If you're bringing up other ethical breaches, then we've got what, 348792535 Congressmen to work through before forming any conclusions like that.


And for those here who are trying to bully people into not citing examples that prove the phoniness of their "outrage" on this issue, I for one will not be cowed into keeping silent on the glaring hypocrisy of the left.

Oy, how thin-skinned are you? Where is the bullying behavior in this blog? We're all talking back and forth. Sometimes nicely, sometimes rudely, but bullying?


Not only did Stubbs turn his back on the House when they read the censure, but he also held a press conference together with his young "friend" and told everyone to butt out, that it was their own personal business, and his party allowed him to get away with that.

I don't know. I can't speak for how they reacted then. I know TO ME, he should have resigned. Period. And most others on this board are saying the same thing. You can't indict me for something a bunch of other people did when I was in grade school.

2:04 PM  
Anonymous Widget said...

Why were the Im's saved? Who saved the IM's?

The kids sent messages to each other about underage drinking etc.
These kids weren't angels.

Who saved old IM's?

2:17 PM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

REPUBLICAN HYPOCRISY IN MOTION.
Here's a quote from Foley in the
Sept. 12, 1998 issue of the St. Petersburg Times:
Foley is commenting on the latest Clinton relevations regarding Lewinsky:
"It's vile," said Rep. Mark Foley, R-West Palm Beach. "It's more sad than anything else to see someone with such potential throw it all down the drain because of a sexual addiction."

http://www.sptimes.com/Worldandnation/91298/Congress_sees_through.html

2:20 PM  
Anonymous Cromwell said...

Twot, no worries mate.

I agree with you and Mark Foley. Clinton's actions are vile.

You brought up Clinton, not me. But Foley's concern was unwarranted. Clinton stayed. He had no potential and nothing to throw down the drain, and he did not resign.

Foley apparently said that in 1998. Was he Emailing pages then?

What was your point?

2:30 PM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

My point was to point out yet another example the hypocrisy of Repukes in both their words and actions.
Of course, those like Cromwell cannot see anything beyond a Clinton reference.

2:53 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Dave G. said...
"So they discussed the emails. That's as far as it went? That's not enough. And they knew about this for months without doing anything about it until it blew up in their faces. You can't tell me that was responsible.


The e-mails didn't blow up in anyone's faces, Dave G. Everyone thought that problem had been settled. It was the filthy IMs that got everyone's attention.

And the Republican leadership did speak to Foley about the e-mails that he sent to that boy, and he was told to cease and desist all personal contact with him and all pages.

I believe that was the end of the matter until the mysterious "keeper of the IMs" started circulating the IMs among the media. The IMs were over three years old. Where did they come from, Dave G? Who saves their IMs?

Dave G. said...
"The Washington Times is among the conservatives calling for Hastert to resign. This isn't just Democrats saying this."


And the editor, Tony Blankley, is another conservative that I really like a lot, but I cannot for the life of me figure out why he would come out so strongly against Hastert without knowing all of the facts. It's so premature to call for anyone's resignation other than Foley's. This is insane.

I think they might just be a little up tight about sex scandals involving minors over at the Washington Times since they just recently had one of their own. It may have clouded their judgement.


Wash Times' Employee Caught in Sex Sting

By E&P Staff

Published: September 27, 2006 8:55 PM ET

NEW YORK Local police today charged the director of human resources at The Washington Times with one count of attempting to entice a minor on the Internet, the newspaper reported.

Randall Casseday, 53, was arrested late yesterday in Northeast Washignton, D.C., where police said he had arranged to meet who he thought was a 13-year-old girl.

He had actually exchanged Internet messages and photographs with a male police officer posing as a girl, the newspaper related, adding, "The conversation included discussion of an explicit sexual nature."

Brian Bauman, a spokesman for The Times, said Casseday had been suspended without pay. The paper added: "It is not clear from the affidavit whether the online conversation took place on company property or on a company-owned computer."


Still, as I wrote over on MLF, unless they are in possession of incriminating information against Hastert that no one else has right now, their hasty call for Hastert's resignation seems ill-advised.

2:10 AM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Dave G. said...
"Baloney. As I said in another post, we've got 3 Congressmen who were implicated in such a scandal over the past 33 years. Two of them, one Dem, one GOPer, did not resign. This one did."


You forgot Mel Reynolds.

Reynolds was unsuccessful in his 1986, 1988 and 1990 campaigns against Congressman Gus Savage. However, Reynolds was able to defeat Savage in 1992. He served in the House of Representatives from 1993 to 1995.

In August of 1994, he was indicted for having sex with a sixteen-year-old campaign volunteer. Despite the charges, he continued his campaign and was re-elected in November of 2004. Reynolds initially denied the charges, which he claimed were racially motivated. On August 22, 1995 he was convicted on 12 counts of sexual assault, obstruction of justice and solicitation of child pornography. He resigned his seat on October 1, 1995.

Reynolds was sentenced to five years in prison and expected to be released in 1998. However, in April of 1997, he was convicted on fifteen unrelated counts of bank fraud and lying to SEC investigators. These charges resulted in an additional sentence of six and a half years in federal prison. Mel Reynolds served his entire sentence on the original charges, but after 42 months of Reynold's 78 month sentence, U.S. President Bill Clinton commuted the sentence for bank fraud. As a result, Reynolds served the balance in a half way house.


I'll respond to the rest of your post when I have more time.

2:17 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

When is Pelosi going to resign because of the coruption by those in her party? This is getting stupid.

8:16 AM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

The e-mails didn't blow up in anyone's faces, Dave G. Everyone thought that problem had been settled. It was the filthy IMs that got everyone's attention.

They really didn't do anything about it, though. They told Foley, "Hey, don't contact him anymore." That's not an investigation. They didn't tell him not to contact anyone -- but to be mindful of who he contacts. Either way, they didn't really look into it, just said, "Er, don't do that." Now they're talking about being proactive, which isn't the same thing as being proactive then. We seem to disagree on what should have been done. To me those emails are a red flag. I didn't say the emails blew up in their face - the entire situation has blown up in their face.

I believe that was the end of the matter until the mysterious "keeper of the IMs" started circulating the IMs among the media.

Well, sort of. The emails came out in the press months after what you're talking about, the "matter being settled." One day later, the IMs came out.

The IMs were over three years old. Where did they come from, Dave G? Who saves their IMs?

Who the heck knows? The WSJ reported that other pages came forward to ABC a day after the emails came out. I don't know who saves IMs.

From today's WSJ: "Former congressional pages themselves supplied some of the most damning emails in the scandal that forced the resignation of Rep. Mark Foley, stepping forward only after tamer messages were posted by ABC News on its Web site Thursday.

Several media organizations, along with law-enforcement and congressional officials, had seen the Florida Republican's tamer messages to male teenage pages months ago, but the messages didn't set off alarm bells, even at ABC, which didn't consider them worthy of its broadcast TV news, a reconstruction of events shows."

I can't reprint the whole article - it wouldn't be right. But that's the first couple paragraphs.


As for Mel Reynolds, then that makes 2 Dems, 2 Reps. Either way we're not talking about a lot of data here.

9:03 AM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

We interrupt this regularly scheduled program to bring you a special announcement.
We now have all the proof we need that Faux News is just that: phooney news that will stop at nothing even the most blatant lies to prop up its conservative slant.
Three different times during 2 different segments of O'Reilly Factor the other day, lasting 15 seconds or more each, Foley was shown via the print on the bottom of the screen to be a Democrat!
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=3570
Ho. Ho.
Amazing. What will they do next. Go so far as to label other embarrasing Republicans like Bush a Democrat next?
Hey, the Faux News producers likely thought, maybe we can create confusion in the public's mind so they might think Foley is a Democrat when they cast their votes in November. Hey, we want to do anything we can to help.
Now back to our regularly scheduled program. When we last left, dave G. was answering to Trinity's charges of trying to compare Foley to past Republican scandals and to answer to Trinity's implication that Dems unearthed the IM's. Perhaps Trinity hasn't seen the ABC news report where the reporters said their sources for the story were most likely Republicans. (Sorry, I cannot find the link at the moment).
Why would anyone save IM's, it was asked? I believe the pages may have saved them just as anyone would save correspondences with politicians and other celebrities (Why I myself have saved a special commendation letter sent to me when I was a teenager in 1979 by former Wisconsin Governor Lee Sherman Dreyfus). Or maybe the pages found these IM's obviously suspicious and one day would prove useful.
But what is most important, we can be thankful the pages saved the IM's to spare the public the full-blown Republican spin and obfuscation machine, or, even worse, a prolonged cover-up of a sexual predator, had lessor evidence been presented.

9:45 AM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

Sorry, I meant above Trinity comparing Foley to past Democratic scandals.

9:50 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Listed on BlogShares