Your spin is old and does not fit the facts.
"Clarice Feldman: But Democrats are attempting to make hay by alleging that the Republican leadership may have known about the inappropriate emails and covered them up for months. Their hope, no doubt, is to discourage turnout by disillusioned evangelical and other voters sensitive to moral issues. But the emerging background detail suggests that this is simply not the case...."
It most certainly is the case.
You are aware that people within the House leadership knew of the inappropriate emails as early as late 2005?
We don't know when they learned of the IMs. But the emails are old news to them. Add that to the fact that pages have been warned about Foley for years, and it adds up to either a cover-up, incompetent investigating or a failure to take the charges seriously. It doesn't look good in any case, and the only thing to do now is drop the spin and come clean.
Semantics won't help. People knew he was a sicko, and whoever those were who knew but didn't do anything have to come forward now.This isn't about politics, it's about protecting kids from a predator. The more we try to soft-pedal it, the bigger opportunity we hand the Dims to score points.
-What about Gerry Studds?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerry_Studds
Well put.
What about Gerry Studds?
Pathetic sicko. Should not have been shielded by his corrupt party.
What does that have to do with Foley, exactly?