Posted on 10/01/2006 8:58:50 AM PDT by the Real fifi
Pardon me, but I smell something very peculiar in the way we have learned of the disgrace of Rep. Mark Foley.
The email scandal which led to the resignation of the Republican Congressman is reverberating throughout the capital and the nation, as Democrats attempt to capitalize on bad news for Republicans. The seamiest of the released emails, which Foley has not denied, are right up there with Rhodes Scholar and Illinois Democratic Congressman Mel Reynolds’ taped phone conversations lusting for 15 year old Catholic school girls in their uniforms
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
The Speaker acted the same way the press did with only the innocuous emails (not the hot stuff) and parents who insisted on privacy, precluding further investigation.
Steve Gilbert has reminded me about the state of Franks' knowledge of the male prostitution ring being run out of his basement:
washingtonpost.com: TV Movie Led to Prostitute's Disclosures
In late 1985, Gobie says, he began to use Frank's apartment and two other locations for prostitution. Frank knew about the prostitution all along, but it was never explicitly discussed, Gobie says.
"He knew exactly what I was doing," Gobie said. "It was pretty obvious. If he had to come home early {from work}, he would call home to be sure the coast was clear . . . . He was living vicariously through me. He said it was kind of a thrill, and if he had been 20 years younger he might be doing the same thing."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/longterm/tours/scandal/gobie2.htm
You don't excuse or explain away this crime by telling me the dems didn't dump Franks. When you have the responsibility, you have to step up and do the right thing, not say "Well they got away with it."
The Constitution doesn't require morality from elected officials.
That's the electorate's decision.
Long time Democrat bachelors, like Representative Bobby Scott, are protected from their constituents by the media.
The media looked at these charges. They do not look at morals charges against the likes of Bobby Scott.
And why, when Clinton hit on interns, was it his "personal sex life"? Funny how things change when it's the other party.
Interns and pages are not the same thing. There is a slight difference when it involves a minor.
Clintoon was a buffoon who took advantage of a subordinate, which is bad enough. But this sicko took advantage of minors entrusted to his case. That's abhorrent.
hastert knew nothing about the sexually explicit IM's until friday and foley was immediately booted from Congress.
But you already knew that but still propagate the above italicized lie.
The seamiest of the released emails, which Foley has not denied, are right up there with Rhodes Scholar and Illinois Democratic Congressman Mel Reynolds’ taped phone conversations lusting for 15 year old Catholic school girls in their uniforms
This is a much better comparison than BJ Clinton, IMHO.
Sick, sick stuff.
I'll see if I can find the thread I read Fri. If I can't I will apologize.
Arrested for what? Sending creepy emails?
In D.C. the page was of the age of consent.
But I ask you to focus on the facts and not which party is the most moral. (We know the answer to that one.)
The facts are that like the newspapers which first had and held the story, Hastert had nothing more than innocuous emails and could not pursue this further because the parents insisted the privacy of the complainant be respected. They asked only that Foley stop further contact, and that the Republican leaders demanded of him/
Yuh know it is interesting that your arguement isn't that the democrats should rise to the level of the Republicans and ask for barney frank's resignation.
What did the Dems know and when did they know it?
What do the Dem's have to say about:
Gary Studds actual sex with a minor?
Barney Franks gay prostitution operation in his house?
Bill Clinton's sex w an intern?
(Yea, it was rhetorical and self-gratifying.)
It may be interesting to you, have at it.
So what are the chances that the "dirty" emails are real?
How old was that kid? (clearly gay) was he a page?
was he a hustler?
I reread the thread regarding Hasert's office. I was wrong and I apologize.
What's illustrative to me is that, unlike past sex scandals, mostly Democrat, where the congressman is grilled for an extended time and then there is satisfaction when he is eventually removed from office, Foley gave up without a fight much like Bob Livingston (LA) so the Democrats (and some disgruntled Republicans) immediately turned their fangs to others who were not the one committing the offense.
It's as if the Dems are sporting for a six-month bloodbath even after the perp confesses on the first day so instead of going after Foley, everyone is going after someone who knew and did nothing.
Of course, it's unheard of for Democrats to just admit their guilt and resign. Most Democrats will argue that what they did was virtuous and only evil moralistic Republicans would find it wrong. At best, you might get a Democrat to admit what they did was wrong but define it as a "disease" or a "weakness" as if it is not their fault or responsibility so gosh, no, they shouldn't lose their job over it.
The other thing that bothers me is how the GOP is giving away "safe" seats like Foley and Delay before the election but after the point where a safer alternative can get on the ballot and campaign for themself - practically handing the seat to the Democrats. If this were the Democrats in these positions, they'd fight for re-election and only then give up their seats and cause a special election later when they can produce a well-funded alternative.
The Evil Party and the Stupid Party once again showing off their character traits.
Exactly. Good riddens with this guy. If Hastert loses his speakership over this, I for one will not shed any tears.
What were they thinking? EMAILS?? That this sooner or later would not come out? Good grief. If this had come to my attention as House speaker, or House Clerk or as chairman of the board overseeing House pages, this guy would have been history LAST YEAR. There is no excuse in this case.
Very interesting article. It appears that the reporter Brian Ross of ABC is looking to be the new Dan Rather.
This sounded like a Democrat dirty trick from the beginning, based on when it happened and when it came to light. Of course, it couldn't have happened without Foley's cooperation.
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.