Posted on 09/29/2006 12:01:58 PM PDT by Lunatic Fringe
Just breaking on CNN
"Rep. Rodney Alexander (R-La.), who sponsored the page from his district, said he had learned of some of the online exchanges from a reporter some months ago and passed on the information to Rep. Thomas Reynolds (R-N.Y.), chairman of the House Republican campaign organization, the Associated Press reported. Alexander said he did not pursue the matter further because "his parents said they didn't want me to do anything."
I really think Reynolds might be too low on your list. It was my opinion before, and it remains my opinion. JMO.
You have good judgement. This is not the time or the place.
I looked at their site and didn't see it. Do you have a link?
And the St. Petersburg Times knew since last November???
ABC says the boy sent the emails to a staffer in Alexander's office.
Up on the Hill, it's not that they don't expect people to find out, it's that they expect those who do learn about your double life to be discreet about it. Like Newt Gingrich's years-long affair while he was Speaker. Folks knew, but no one said anything until the Clintonistas started exposing Republicans in order to stave off Clinton's impeachment and removal from office.
If anyone else knew about Foley and what he was doing, then I would think they'll also be expected to resign. How could they, if they knew there were suspicions about him, put him charge of the house caucus on missing exploited children. What the hell were they thinking. I can just see Pelosi have a field day with this one, sheesh, I can't take that woman.
The only problem is with your theory is if there is no evidence Foley ever got up close and personal with those regarding whom he was grooming, who were jail bait. Surely some just get their kicks out of grooming, but choose not to run the risk of the sequel no?
They are out of touch in more ways than one.
This is REALLY going to be ugly.
Yep. The boy's family didn't want to pursue the matter so it was dropped.
It is amazing how so many can't do their own research. I pulled up the article in about ten seconds.
It is understandable that the family would not want all the publicity, especially if it was all talk.
But to just overlook the behavior? I just don't get it.
bttt
I can't believe that newspaper didn't go with it.
According to Brian Ross tonight on Nightline, when they put the story up yesterday, they were covered up with emails from other pages/people.
Much better to hold it until it is almost impossible for the GOP to field a replacement candidate.
I was just thinking that.
And why do the parents think it's okay now?
I dread these next few weeks.
I feel like we're going to see the "recuiting scene" from Blazing Saddles: "Rape, murder, rape, robbery, rape." "I like rape."
Yes, some sure do. And others also do it unconsciously. In other words, they engage in 'grooming' type behavior but it's not with any apparent intent to take the next step. They wouldn't even necessarily think of it as grooming.
You probably don't need me to tell you that there are all kinds of variations. Heck, one of my more interesting case studies got his biggest kicks from merely securing a person's name, phone number, and address. Until he managed to get that his stalking could be fairly intense, but once he was confident he had the correct information he pretty much filed them away and all but lost interest and moved on to the next target. In his mind, they were now his 'possession' in a sense and that was sufficient.
Efforts to reach the boy were unsuccessful, but he told the St. Petersburg Times last November, "I thought it was very inappropriate. After the one about the picture, I decided to stop e-mailing him back." The Times didn't publish the comments until Friday.
The fat unused "black book" gone wild. Whatever.
Something is just not ringing true about the "timeline," is it?
Why would the St. Petersburg Times, on record for hating Bush, hold this story?
Well, there was more that made the case study so interesting, but I won't get into all that.
I am to the point of forgetting about politics all together.
Then who are the im's from ?
Reading around the web, alot of folks knew about these allegations as soon as Rodney Alexander informed leadership. Liberal blogger Josh Marshall has Boehner apparently lying too.
Early last night, Boehner told Roll Call "that is not true" that he informed Speaker Hastert 10 months ago about the allegations. Late tonight, he told the Washington Post that he had told Hastert of some "contact" between Foley and the page 10 months ago, and that Hastert told him "we're taking care of it". Once Boehner apparently knew that the media knew he told Hastert, he came clean. That is not how this should be handled.
It's not the crime, it's the cover-up. Hastert and Boehner need to come clean on how much they knew, and when they knew it. It disgusts me as an American that IT WAS KNOWN for a year and nobody did a damned thing about it.
Perhaps it is time for the constitutional amendment for term limits to be brought up again. This is NOT a Republican problem. This is an entranced encumbant problem.
bttt
Someone mentioned earlier that the Palm Beach Post ran the e-mail story a year ago. There wasn't a link, just that statement.
I'll look for it.
No, it sure isn't.
They are from a different page, from 2003. Once this story broke, other pages started contacting ABC.
I'm with you. But I can only take so much of HGTV.
I've actually started watching REAL TV shows; James Woods' new show is great!
Thanks .. I didn't realize another page copied the im's from 2003
Foley's not homosexual, he is a pedophile.
I really wouldn't be shocked if Hastert doesn't resign his leadership position before the week-end is over. Boehner has basically stated that Hastert knew and let this go on. If true, Hastert should quit as speaker. I could never look at him the same way, knowing that he knew for a year and pretended he didn't, and left Foley as co-chair of the missing and exploited kid committee.
From today's St. Petersburg Times:
St. Petersburg Times reporters obtained the original e-mails last fall and interviewed two former pages, but didn't write a story. The 16-year-old boy did not want to be named. The other boy, who was willing to be named, said Foley hadn't done anything inappropriate. It's a Times policy not to make accusations in stories based on unnamed sources.
SNIP
As a member of Congress, Foley was gregarious and charming and befriended the pages, the teen-agers who serve as the Capitol's official messengers.
"I was told by a few interns to be careful about Foley," Will Humble of California, a 2005 page, told the Times last year.
But Humble, who received some personal e-mails from Foley after he left Washington, said he never saw inappropriate behavior from the congressman.
"A congressman e-mailing a 17-year-old after leaving the Hill is not normal, but if it's in a friendly situation it doesn't really matter," Humble told the Times last year. "If it was 'Send me a picture,' I would be a little suspicious."
Indeed it is--how could one who's been honored to serve as a representative act out this way--he couldn't have thought this behavior would escape public domain. If he or any have such "feelings" they are legally and morally bound to quash them never to see the light of day or certainly action. My God! I am so disappointed--it crushed me yesterday to think we have this outrageous crap from one of our own... (I know the GOP isn't perfect, but it's the only viable alternative for conservatives)... and at least gives us a voice. Now the question in my mind is can the seat be saved from the socialists?
Pray for Foley--tremendous lack of judgement--but his family deserves better. And maybe he can get right. I hope so.
Yes, but that's beside the point in that the psychology is still distinct. IOW, one set of circumstances resulted in their homosexuality while a separate set of circumstances resulted in their pedophilia. Much the same applies to pedophile men that like girls, the super-majority of which are heterosexual.
I can't read enough to even know if my search terms are accurate.
Can you say BIG FRIGGEN MISTAKE?
This whole thing disgusts me. What is most appalling is that the leadership left Foley in a position where he could continue to troll for teenage boys. Even if they needed to keep it quiet - to respect a parent's request, to protect personal privacy, to spare the party and the institution embarassment - why did they leave Foley in a position where he was able to continue this behavior? Why didn't they slap him down, HARD, in private?
I have a 15 yr old son. I wouldn't be willing to have him harassed and stalked by a pedophile, even if the guy was a Congressman and it spared the Republican Party embarassment. Where was the Tylenol Moment here? Why didn't the guys on top do the right thing?
God, just please don't have it turn out that there are more and more victims of Foley.
There is no free pass for this kind of thing. What in the hell were they thinking? At least they should have gotten Foley to quietly retire if they were going to cover for him, to let him go away with nobody knowing why.
He and they were pretending like it never happened. What is wrong with people once they get to DC. This is behavior I expect of democrats.
Pederast or ebeophile (the spelling of the last I'm not sure about). Pedophile is an adult attracted to pre-pubescent children, the other two are men attracted to adolescents, which would include underage teenaged boys.
Which is often SOP for homosexuals and has been throughout history.
Pedophiles find a way to get involved in child related issues. Foley followed the ped script to the letter.
Like clowns.
I've said it more than once today. And worse.
Are the leadership free from civil damages on something like this? Anybody who was went after this year, could argue that Hastert facilitated it, and if I was on a jury I would agree if what Rep Boehner is saying is true.
Everything I've seen says it was the St. Petersburg Times that got the e-mail first last November.
Ugh... at least he didn't kill them and bury them in Rock Lake Park like a democrat we know.
Expletive deleted. This is ridiculous.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.