Posted on 10/07/2006 5:54:41 AM PDT by paudio
“What were those guys thinking?”
That is what every woman I’ve spoken to has said about the Foley mess.
“What were those guys thinking?”
It’s just that simple.
Why didn’t Hastert and Reynolds and Shimkus understand what every vigilant parent knows, that there is something very fishy about an older guy, any older guy, sending overly friendly e-mails to a 16-year-old, whether the 16-year-old is a boy or a girl.
Sure, the fundamental problem here is that Foley was sending those e-mails and, even worse, those even more explicit and disgusting text messages. But just as big a problem is that the House leadership was so dumb or disinterested that they really believed (at least, so they say) Foley’s alleged excuse that he was just “being friendly.”
Didn’t they ever wonder why a 52-year-old congressman needed a 16-year-old friend? A congressman whom almost everyone on the Hill thought was gay?
Would they have believed him and then just gone about their business if the one receiving the e-mails was their own son?
(Excerpt) Read more at article.nationalreview.com ...
Oops... I didn't know that quotes could create such problem. Moderator, please fix the title... Thanks.
Don't worry. This is not going to work. As Rush says...the door will open into the libs noses on this one.
I don't like it when people assume mothers are irrational.
I thought they were some arcane security code numbers.
I wonder what these security moms will think when it turns out that Pelosi's staff had this information long before THEY released it to the media.
It's only a matter of time.
It's clear you've never met my ex MIL.
If our quotation marks aren't secure how can anything or anyone be secure?
Whew!
LOL! Change that to "all mothers."
Fortunately the election is a month away. Plenty of time to make up lost ground. Nailing a few terrorists would help.
The problem with "security moms" as a concept is that it shifts responsibility, whether it's responsibility for keeping children safe from violence (if possible), or responsibility for keeping children safe from dirty internet chat with a Congressman.
Parents are responsible for their children's computer usage, until the children are adults and have left home, and that's that. I *KNOW* that no gay men, Congressmen or otherwise, are emailing MY sons, because my sons are not allowed to use the internet unsupervised. It's that simple.
It's not the Speaker of the House's responsibility, it's my husband's responsibility, because he's their father. (Funny how there usually aren't any fathers mentioned in these articles about how "moms" feel, isn't it?)
With only seeing the e-mail, assuming no law was broken, even if the leaders were suspicious (which they were, so they asked Foley to stop), what could they have done? Once they saw the IMs, they immediately asked him to resign. This is 'truth'. But, the perceptions of Republican leaders were covering up for Foley would always be there.
If you dust off your psych 101 textbook and read up on life stages, you'll also find that once you get the gold watch, you are driven to teach, to pass along your craft to the next generation. Consider it a continuation of the species thing.
Now take someone like a Hastert, immersed in his job (and thus the bureaucracy mindset) 24/7, midwestern roots, a firm belief in his power (I commanded him to stop) and therefore no need for follow-through, an inside-the-beltway sensitivity to the media storm that would come from clamping down on a protected class, mentoring and "career rabbi" being the norm for those in power (like a rep.), it is not too hard to see how this could slip by. Not excusing it, but "how could this happen" is not as implausible as the article suggests.
We hear the same thing over and over, but with no specificity. What, exactly, would those "tougher" questions be in a matter like this? Maybe there is an obvious answer, but I don't know what it is. I haven't seen any transcripts of the conversations with Foley, so I don't know what was said. How does the writer know?
The writer says she would "act" to protect this teen. Well, they did. But she does not tell us what actions she would take to protect "any other youngster" that might attract his attention. How, exactly, do you do that? Should they have tried to expell him from Congress? HOMOPHOBIA, OVERREACTION!!! Should they have made him wear an identifying badge? Something like "I am a sexual predator." I just hate these cheap shots, especially from a supposed conservative.
NRO has become the National RINO Organization.
Wimpy. Pious. Losers.
FREEPER WARRIORS RULE THE EARTH
I am sure everyone is dismayed about this, but the ones most upset, I would guess, are married women with children, those independent voters who were the “security moms” in the 2004 election and turned out to be so crucial to George W. Bush’s victory.
Posted by Crawdad to navysealdad On News/Activism 10/06/2006 4:22:02 PM PDT · 186 of 300
The dems aren't trying to keep anti-gays home on election day. The dems are activily pursuing the anti-gay vote.What scares a security mom more than the thought of one of her children being molested or hit on by a pervert? Dems to the rescue!
Hey Myrna, stop copying me.
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.