Congressman Foley resigned

Page 21 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

aidanjm

Lifer
Aug 9, 2004
12,411
2
0
John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Thomas M. Reynolds (R-N.Y.) say they discussed the issue with Hasstert this spring. But even if Hastert didn't know, don't you think he needs to step up and accept responsibility simply because he is House Speaker and final responsibility for the pages program lies at his door?

Also, one difference between the Foley situation and previous page sex scandals (or scandals with campaign volunteers) is that at least some of the recipients of Foley's attentions were not willing participants, whereas with the 1982 scandal and also possibly the Reynolds scandal the sexual interactions were consensual.
 

Aegeon

Golden Member
Nov 2, 2004
1,809
125
106
Cleary the people of his district are not accepting the assertion that Tom Reynolds did nothing wrong involving the Foley Scandal. He's now down by 15 points according to the latest Zogby poll!!!

Democrat Jack Davis has opened a significant lead over Republican incumbent Thomas M. Reynolds in a congressional contest fueled by Reynolds' association with the Mark Foley sex scandal.

Davis leads Reynolds 48 percent to 33 percent in a new Zogby International poll conducted for The Buffalo News, prompting pollster John Zogby to conclude that Davis poses a genuine threat to the longtime powerhouse from Clarence.

"There is no other way to look at these numbers except to say Tom Reynolds is in trouble," the Utica-based Zogby said.

The poll surveyed 402 likely voters in the 26th Congressional District on Wednesday and Thursday (with a margin for error of plus or minus 5 percentage points). It showed that 325 respondents were following the Foley story, with 57 percent disapproving the way Reynolds handled the situation after he found out last spring Foley had sent an e-mail that made a former page uncomfortable. And then 10 days ago, it was revealed that Foley had sent sexually explicit instant messages to other former pages.

Only 25 percent of the poll respondents said they approved of how Reynolds handled the situation.
http://buffalonews.com/editorial/20061008/1033841.asp

So much for what was supposed to be a safe Republican House seat.
 

Aegeon

Golden Member
Nov 2, 2004
1,809
125
106
It certainly looks like what Mark Foley was doing was actually rather well known among members of the Republican House some time ago.

A Republican congressman knew of disgraced former representative Mark Foley's inappropriate Internet exchanges as far back as 2000 and personally confronted Foley about his communications.

A spokeswoman for Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-Ariz.) confirmed yesterday that a former page showed the congressman Internet messages that had made the youth feel uncomfortable with the direction Foley (R-Fla.) was taking their e-mail relationship. Last week, when the Foley matter erupted, a Kolbe staff member suggested to the former page that he take the matter to the clerk of the House, Karen Haas, said Kolbe's press secretary, Korenna Cline...

A source with direct knowledge of Kolbe's involvement said the messages shared with Kolbe were sexually explicit, and he read the contents to The Washington Post under the condition that they not be reprinted. But Cline denied the source's characterization, saying only that the messages had made the former page feel uncomfortable. Nevertheless, she said, "corrective action" was taken. Cline said she has not yet determined whether that action went beyond Kolbe's confrontation with Foley.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co...rticle/2006/10/08/AR2006100800855.html

You have to ask how its possible that Hastert was really unaware of any of this going on.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,052
30
86
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Harvey
WRONG IS WRONG, and the ONLY thing that matters is whether such accustations of real wrongdoing are true and supported by the evidence.
Harvey you are so right about that part, and so far there is NO evidence at all that shows that Hastert or anyone else in congress knew about Foley and the inappropraite IMs with the pages. If that evidence shows up, which I don't think it will, then I will join you in calling for Hastert to resign.
[Above quotes shortend for space]

ProfJohn -- You can keep on denying it, but the you're one of the few who believes your own BS.
Foley Fallout Reflected In Polls
53 Percent Want Democrats To Win Control Of Congress In New Poll

Oct. 8, 2006

(CBS/AP) More than half of Americans don't believe the House GOP leadership in the Mark Foley online message scandal and an upstate N.Y. congressman, once engaged in a tight race for re-election, is now faced with a double-digit deficit, according to two new polls released Saturday.

Fifty-two percent of those surveyed in a Newsweek poll say they believe House Speaker Dennis Hastert was aware of the former Florida Rep. Foley's inappropriate messages to teenage House pages and tried to cover them up. Hastert has said he was not aware of Foley's inappropriate conduct until the story broke publicly late last month.

Also, 42 percent say they trust Democrats to do a better job of handling moral values, while 36 percent say they trust Republicans more.

The Newsweek survey says 53 percent of Americans want the Democrats to win control of Congress next month, including ten percent of Republicans. That compares to just 35 percent who want the GOP to retain power.

Meanwhile, Rep. Thomas Reynolds, R-N.Y., is trailing behind his Democratic opponent after being connected to the scandal involving Foley.

The poll, performed by Zogby International for The Buffalo News, showed businessman Jack Davis leading Reynolds 48 percent to 33 percent.

The poll, which surveyed 402 likely voters in the 26th Congressional District on Wednesday and Thursday, found 325 respondents were following the Foley story and 57 percent disapproved of how Reynolds was handling the situation. Only 25 percent approved.

Democrats have been trying to capitalize on the negative momentum of Republicans. On Saturday, Democrat Patty Wetterling, a candidate for an open House seat in Minnesota, continued the attack.

The Democrats could take the House, the Senate or both. In the House it would take a gain of 15 of the 435 seats being elected, and a gain of six of the 33 Senate seats at stake would swing control of that chamber to the Democrats.

Reynolds said fellow Congressman Rodney Alexander told him last spring about "overly friendly" e-mails from Foley to a teenage former Congressional page. Though Reynolds said he didn't see the e-mails, he then alerted his boss, House Speaker Dennis Hastert.

Foley resigned Sept. 29 as it was revealed he had sent sexually explicit instant messages to other former pages.

Only 2 percent of those surveyed in last week's poll said they view Reynolds more favorably since news of the scandal broke, while 50 percent said they think less favorably of him.

Those whose opinions remain unchanged stand at 47 percent. The poll had a margin for error of plus or minus 5 percentage points.

In a new ad campaign defending himself, Reynolds said referring to Foley, "Nobody's angrier and more disappointed that I didn't catch his lies."

The television commercial appeared Friday on stations in Buffalo and Rochester. "I trusted that others had investigated. Looking back, more should have been done, and for that, I am sorry," Reynolds said.

Reynolds, head of the House Republican election effort, has come under attack from Democrats who say he did too little to protect a page from Foley.

In an editorial board meeting Friday with The Buffalo News, Reynolds said he could not remember several details about his involvement, including exactly when he learned of Foley's e-mails to teenage congressional pages or when he told House Speaker Dennis Hastert about them.

However, Reynolds said Sept. 30 that he had told Hastert months ago about concerns he had about Foley's messages.

"In relation to what everyone knew when he found out in the spring, (Reynolds) took the appropriate action for what he knew at the time," Reynolds spokesman L.D. Platt said. "But knowing what he does now, he clearly feels there is a little bit of 'parent guilt."'

Reynolds already was in a tough re-election race against businessman Jack Davis, his rival from 2004.

Reynolds aides said his campaign will spend about $200,000 on the new commercial.

"I never saw a single e-mail," Reynolds says in the ad. "Not one."

Reynolds said his position in the House leadership has not been compromised.

He also told the newspaper editorial board his former chief of staff, Kirk Fordham, never discussed with him any concerns about Foley, even though Fordham previously worked for Foley for a decade. Fordham resigned this past week.

Fordham said in an Associated Press interview that he warned Hastert's aides more than three years ago that Foley's behavior toward pages was troublesome. That was long before GOP leaders acknowledged learning of the problem.

Fordham's claim drew a swift, unequivocal denial from Hastert's chief of staff. "What Kirk Fordham said did not happen," Scott Palmer said through a spokesman.

©MMVI, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Hastert's credibility is now well on its way to the other side of oblivion. Are you sure you want to continue to ride that train with him? :laugh:
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,251
8
0
Originally posted by: Harvey
Hastert's credibility is now well on its way to the other side of oblivion. Are you sure you want to continue to ride that train with him? :laugh:
You know I hate to bring up Clinton because I get a bunch of crap when I do, but how many people stood behind him when he first came out and said he did NOT have sex with Monica? And this was a guy who had a history of extra marital affairs, and yet everyone believed him and went to his defense.

I shall stand behind Hastert until I see evidence that he knew of the sexual nature of Foley's contact with pages. Call it what you will, but posting all the opinion polls in the world won't change my mind. (And I have not done anything to defend Hastert or anyone else in this mess, the most I have done is question the timing of the story and asked if it is a political "hit" job)

BTW: I think this is the second post in a row where you haven't insulted me in some way, I am impressed.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,052
30
86
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Harvey
Hastert's credibility is now well on its way to the other side of oblivion. Are you sure you want to continue to ride that train with him? :laugh:
You know I hate to bring up Clinton...
Then don't do it! You only embarrass yourself with more dissembling and distraction. :roll:
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I shall stand behind Hastert until I see evidence that he knew of the sexual nature of Foley's contact with pages.
Didn't your mother warn you, if you didn't stop it, you'd go blind?
Call it what you will, but posting all the opinion polls in the world won't change my mind.
I accept. I call it willing, intentional self deception and blindness to the facts.
And I have not done anything to defend Hastert or anyone else in this mess, the most I have done is question the timing of the story and asked if it is a political "hit" job)
Another Hasterism. In his finger pointing and blame shifting, so far, Hastert has named sneaky Democrats, Bill Clinton, George Soros, the "liberal media," and anyone else with a buzz word name to point at. ABC's Brian Ross, who broke the story, says his source was a Republican. The Florida papers that said they had heard about the emails said they got them from a Republican source, but what they had was not convincing enough for them to run with it.

Even as Hastert was forgetting that "The buck stops here." is a quote from Harry Truman (D - Mo), he was pointing fingers at "Democratic operatives" and ABC News:
Hastert dodges Foley heat, denies report of repeated warnings

By Rick Pearson and Mike Dorning

Tribune staff reporters
Published October 4, 2006, 10:26 PM CDT

WASHINGTON -- A defiant House Speaker Dennis Hastert fought Wednesday to hold on to his leadership post while fractures appeared among his lieutenants and a former senior aide to Mark Foley said he repeatedly had warned Hastert's top aide about Foley's inappropriate behavior toward underage pages more than two years ago.

In an interview with the Tribune on Wednesday night, Hastert said that he had no thoughts of resigning and he blamed ABC News and Democratic operatives for the mushrooming scandal that threatens his tenure as speaker and Republicans' hold on power in the House.

"No. Look, I've talked to our members," Hastert said. "Our members are supportive. I think that [resignation] is exactly what our opponents would like to have happen?that I'd fold my tent and others would fold our tent and they would sweep the House."

When asked about a groundswell of discontent among the GOP's conservative base over his handling of the issue, Hastert said: "I think the base has to realize after awhile, who knew about it? Who knew what, when? When the base finds out who's feeding this monster, they're not going to be happy. The people who want to see this thing blow up are ABC News and a lot of Democratic operatives, people funded by George Soros."

He went on to suggest that operatives aligned with former President Bill Clinton knew about the allegations and were perhaps behind the disclosures in the closing weeks before the Nov. 7 midterm elections, but he offered no hard proof.

"All I know is what I hear and what I see," the speaker said. "I saw Bill Clinton's adviser, Richard Morris, was saying these guys knew about this all along. If somebody had this info, when they had it, we could have dealt with it then."
.
.
(story continues)
This is from the same lard ass whose first announcement was that he had only heard about the emails when the story broke on ABC. That claim has since been refuted by several other top Republicans and their chiefs of staff.

Hastert has yet to step forward and take unequivocal responsibility for anything, even the credibility of his own claims about any dirty tricks or suppression of evidence by any Democrats, or Clinton, or Soros or anyone else.

Do you have any evidence Hastert doesn't know about? :roll:

Even assuming any of his wild claims and denials are true, it STILL doesn't matter. As soon as the Republican leadership had any hint of Foley's perverse actions toward the pages, they are the majority in command of the House, and it was their responsiblity at least to investigate the charges. If they don't put the safety and best interests of the juveniles entrusted to their care ahead of political considerations, they're aiding and abetting Foley's crimes, and they're as guilty as he is.
 

EXman

Lifer
Jul 12, 2001
20,079
15
81
What was the name of that Democrat that actually had sex with an underage male page? And then still served for 13 more years what was his name....?








.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,052
30
86
Originally posted by: EXman
What was the name of that Democrat that actually had sex with an underage male page? And then still served for 13 more years what was his name....?
Why does it have anything to do with in this case? :roll:

Let me make it simple for you...

WRONG IS WRONG. There's no question about what Foley did. The ONLY remaining question is who in positions of power and responsiblity knew about Foley's pedophilia and what they did to protect the juvenile pages entrusted to their care.

More clues --

1. Clinton didn't do this one.

2. Neither did any other Democrat.

3. Neither did George Soros.

4. Neither did ABC News.

5. Top Republicans DID know. Some knew and told others three to six months ago. Some knew and told others over a year ago. Some knew and told others as long as SIX years ago. :shocked:

If any Democrats knew about Foley that long ago, they would have been obligated to take it to the Republican House leadership, just as Republicans either did or should have, and it would still be their responsiblity. And if Democrats knew about it before the last election cycle and didn't report it, don't you think that, at a minimum, they would have tried to get political mileage out of it before now? :roll:

Get over your lame finger pointing, blame shifting witch hunt, and deal with it. Remember Colin Powell's "Pottery Barn" rule -- You broke it. You own it.

Or did your dog eat your homework? :p
 

aidanjm

Lifer
Aug 9, 2004
12,411
2
0
Originally posted by: Harvey
Let me make it simple for you...

WRONG IS WRONG. There's no question about what Foley did. The ONLY remaining question is who in positions of power and responsiblity knew about Foley's pedophilia and what they did to protect the juvenile pages entrusted to their care.

You are being a drama queen. Foley is not a pedophile. He is attracted to individuals who are sexually mature. By definition - not a pedophile. I find it interesting that you are willing to criminalize gay sexuality in such a blase fashion. In case you need reminding, the age of consent is 16. It is not illegal or immoral for a 16 year old young man to have sex with an older man. The behavior of people like you is a reminder that gays in the USA should be very wary indeed of the Democrats.

Yes, what Foley did was rather unprofessional and inappropriate due to his role as a mentor and adviser to the pages. But this is not pedophilia or even sexual abuse. This is a relatively tame case of sexual harrassment. Not exactly the crime of the century. It's about equivalent in moral seriousness to a high-school teacher who has an affair with a graduated student.

The "juveniles" - actually young men aged 18 and over - are fine. There is no evidence they were harmed. There is no evidence they are suffering any lingering after-effects. Republicans probably didn't do anything, because they thought Foley was harmless. I think their assessment was for the most part correct.
 

Todd33

Diamond Member
Oct 16, 2003
7,842
2
81
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Republicans probably didn't do anything, because they thought Foley was harmless. I think their assessment was for the most part correct.

Wow, that's the textbook definition of an apologist. I'm sure you would apply the same logic to a Democrat who used his elected office to prey on 15-18 year old boys.
 

aidanjm

Lifer
Aug 9, 2004
12,411
2
0
Originally posted by: Todd33
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Republicans probably didn't do anything, because they thought Foley was harmless. I think their assessment was for the most part correct.

Wow, that's the textbook definition of an apologist. I'm sure you would apply the same logic to a Democrat who used his elected office to prey on 15-18 year old boys.

I'd be interested to know just what, exactly, you think needs to be apologized for.

By "prey" do you mean send sleazy emails to?

By "boy" do you mean young man?

By 15 and 16, do you mean 18 years old?

If you can't even be honest, then don't bother discussing.
 

Todd33

Diamond Member
Oct 16, 2003
7,842
2
81
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Originally posted by: Todd33
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Republicans probably didn't do anything, because they thought Foley was harmless. I think their assessment was for the most part correct.

Wow, that's the textbook definition of an apologist. I'm sure you would apply the same logic to a Democrat who used his elected office to prey on 15-18 year old boys.

I'd be interested to know just what, exactly, you think needs to be apologized for.

You are so far over the egde you cannot see reality anymore.
 

aidanjm

Lifer
Aug 9, 2004
12,411
2
0
Originally posted by: Todd33
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Originally posted by: Todd33
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Republicans probably didn't do anything, because they thought Foley was harmless. I think their assessment was for the most part correct.

Wow, that's the textbook definition of an apologist. I'm sure you would apply the same logic to a Democrat who used his elected office to prey on 15-18 year old boys.

I'd be interested to know just what, exactly, you think needs to be apologized for.

You are so far over the egde you cannot see reality anymore.

Please explain how the victims were damaged. Discuss the lingering after-effects of the "abuse" they experienced. Oh, wait... they never actually had sex with Foley. It was just a few conversations via instant messaging.

edit: I'm not surprised you aren't willing to get specific. That would require you to admit to your homophobic double standards.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,052
30
86
Originally posted by: aidanjm
You are being a drama queen. Foley is not a pedophile. He is attracted to individuals who are sexually mature. By definition - not a pedophile.
Sonny boy, you are in the stark minority on that.
I find it interesting that you are willing to criminalize gay sexuality in such a blase fashion.
Criminalize gay sexuality? Either you've never read any of my posts on the subject, or you're smoking some good sh8, and the sad news is, you're not sharing. :laugh:

For the record -- I am not gay, but as an audio design engineer, work around the enterainment business, and some of my friends, and some of the people with whom I do business are gay. Even if it bothered me, being homophobic in the entertainment business in L.A. is pretty much a death wish for your career.
In case you need reminding, the age of consent is 16. It is not illegal or immoral for a 16 year old young man to have sex with an older man. The behavior of people like you is a reminder that gays in the USA should be very wary indeed of the Democrats.
Tell that to Foley's constituants in Florida, where the age of consent is 18. :shocked:

Now, if you want to scroll through all of my posts in this thread, you'll find that, long ago, I said that Foley isn't the issue. His conduct is documented, and whatever happens to him will be determined by whatever statutes are found to apply.

The bigger issue for the entire nation is what the Republican leadership knew about Foley's behavior, when they knew it and what they did about it. A lot of evidence and testimony indicates they knew about it months or years ago and covered it up for political gain, and the majority of Americans in several polls shows that's what they believe.

If that's what happened, it raises serious questions about the integrity of everyone who knew about it and participated in such a cover up, or just kept silent and did nothing.

You don't have to take my word for it. Just turn on any news outlet to see what they're discussing about the case.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,052
30
86
Fixed. He also CONVENIENTLY found out he was an alcoholic. Or, as David Letterman said,
"Have you all been following this scandal in Washington with ex-Congressman Mark Foley? Well, a couple of days ago, he checked himself into rehab. ... It had gotten so bad he had to go out and develop a drinking problem."
I guess the problem got worse when the priest he named decided to give up drinking... at least with Foley. :p