Posted on 10/03/2006 4:09:22 AM PDT by Taggart_D
You don't know that.
"They could not do much more, because it would be viewed as gay bashing within the party."
You wrote that with a straight face?
I didn't call for his head. The only resignations I called for were in my last statement: "Anyone & everyone of either party who knew of Mark Foley's predation on children prior to this becoming public should resign immediately."
This is because they knowingly allowed at least one pedophile to prey on the house pages - children. I'm guessing there are more.
As for Hastert, playing dumb doesn't cut it with me. He's too powerful for that, & pols couldn't keep a secret about their own sister.
Where are you getting your information on this? The only place I've seen this is in the WaPo, which is not a source I would consider golden.
This is absolutely false.
Apparently we have a small problem with the definition of exactly what a child is.
But it's is no surprise to me. Thousands of mothers have no idea their kids are out and sexually active like a bunch of bunny's. To them, they are their children, but they really don't fit the definition.
So now, I see politicians on both sides of the aisle using this device to create anger and horror.....
Sorry, but I am not biting on the bait. A 16 or seventeen year old today, is very likely to have been sexually active for more than two to three years. These pages are generally a bit older and are young adults, not children.
That doesn't eliminate all the problems, but more than half of all the Congress-critters hitting on the pages in the past have been gay blades, so that gets rid of at least half the problem.
The minority party calls for an investigation of some sort everyday. The FBI should be looking for terrorists not applying muscle for every witch hunt the democrats and media cook up.
I would hate to think The Speaker spends his entire day searching for problems he does not know exist. Had Hastert asked for Foley's resignation with the information he did have the Democrat leadership would have insisted on Hastert's resignation by branding him homophobic.
Congressman Tom Reynolds in a statement issued today indicates that many months later, in the spring of 2006, he was approached by Congressman Alexander who mentioned the Foley issue from the previous fall. During a meeting with the Speaker he says he noted the issue which had been raised by Alexander and told the Speaker that an investigation was conducted by the Clerk of the House and Shimkus. While the Speaker does not explicitly recall this conversation, he has no reason to dispute Congressman Reynold’s recollection that he reported to him on the problem and its resolution.
As you can see, the speaker does not "explicitly recall this conversation".
Did you know that children usually tell you what they think you want to hear ~ lest you think them abnormal and want to fix them.
The kiddies are less sexually active than you believe, so watch out.
This is the Republican fatal flaw. One can hope that this Democrat backstabbing of Hastert will finally open up a few eyes.
-PJ
I can't count how many times I've seen that lie here (GOP leaders ignored pedophiles). It's ridiculous and obvious that the media campaign of confusion is working to some extent.
How many editorial editors does the WT have? So now you're saying Tony is responsible for demanding Hastert resign? And Hastert is responsible for Foley. Sounds like we have a Plame case in the making.
I consider 16 or younger to be a child. PERIOD!
You obviously have never raised a child. If you did, you'd know what one was. Unless, of course, you are a child.
Picture your 16 year old boy getting a long, wet kiss goodnight by Mark Foley on your doorstep tonight. If you think you should do something about it, then you know how I feel about Hastert & Co. If not, I pity your kids.
Gingrich said the same thing, in so many words. I heard him say it.
he said, because of the sexual orientation of the congressman, it caused some discussion as to potential blow backs from making the original counseling public, so they kept it quiet, private and within the leadership. The inference was that they did not want to upset the gay republican groups any further than they had already, in 2003-04 election cycle.
Your surprise at this, simply tells me you have no idea what you are talking about and are acting all insulted when you don't have a clue as to the politics of this and how it has been played by the Dem's.
Had the republicans had anything at all that could have hurt the party, they would have acted. They did not.
But the Dem's did, and they saved it for this rainy day.
That, or be on the lookout for and enforce laws against pedophiles.
Yes, I have raised three kids, you pious jack&#@*!
Your knee jerking response to common knowledge notwithstanding, perhaps it is you who will end up with a gay son. I did not.
I should have been more clear about my question. You have claimed that Hastert changed his story, at least I think that is what you meant. I am interested in seeing how you came to that conclusion (sources).
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.