Party of Family Values: Foley Resigns

Parent Cafe
201

<p>While Mayor of New York, Rudi Giuliani conducted a long, steamy affair in Gracie Mansion (the Mayor’s house) at a time he was not separated from his wife, and his (I believe) 8-9 year old daughter was still living there. It was front page news of many New York newspapers.</p>

<p>After finding out that his wife was suffering from cancer in 1981, Newt Gingrich deserted (and divorced) her, having taken up with another woman in the interim. In 1999, his new wife suffering from multiple sclerosis, Newt repeated the pattern. </p>

<p>Party of family values.</p>

<p>I am neither a Democrat nor Republican. I tend to find the Republicans more “mendacious”, though the current generation isn’t particularly good at it, which is something I find regretful. I tend to find the Democats more unprincipled, confused, and downright self-serving, which I find even more reprehensible. The Republicans seem to know who their real clients are (and are sometimes quite open about) - they are far from senseless, even though they lie a lot (which isn’t bad in a politician) - their problem is that they too often get found out. The Democrats tend toward clueless.</p>

202

<p>GLA,</p>

<p>I agree that Foley’s IMs were indefensible but, based on the available reports, there is a big difference between the content of his emails and his IMs. The emails were fuzzy. In hindsight they raise red flags but they weren’t overtly improper and could be explained as Foley showing an interest in former pages. The IMs are completely improper but it appears the recipients didn’t show them to anyone but other pages.</p>

<p>As I understand it, the parents of the Louisiana page complained to their Congressman about the emails but didn’t want to make a formal complaint. This makes sense to me. The emails set off alarm bells but there was nothing concrete enough in them to make a formal complaint. Of course, I have no personal knowledge of anyone involved in this but I suspect (or, at least, I hope) that all parents would have complained publicly and forcefully if they had known about the IMs.</p>

203

<p>

I realize that trying to make this point is the Democratic party strategy du jour, but how is this “clear?” DrJ pointed out correctly that two separate issues are being deliberately conflated here–the earlier emails, and the recently-released IMs. It would be best to let the facts come out before jumping to conclusions, but have at it if you must. I, for one, am interested in knowing who had those IMs, and for how long they sat on them (with unequivocal knowledge that this guy was predatory, based on the IMs) before releasing them to the press…think about it. I think there are many posters here whose typing fingers are outpacing their brains.</p>

204

<p>"With Zoosermom on this one… obviously, it’s not a felony in many states to have sexually "</p>

<p>No offense, Aries, but you’re not with me on this one. As I said, I’m not a lawyer and I didn’t know what the actual felony would be. </p>

<p>It seems like stepping into an alternate universe where a question is a statement.</p>

205

<p>

</p>

<p>Every area of activity - even predatory sexual behavior - has its own lingo. The process by which sexual predators forge relationships with potential victims that enable them later to exploit them sexually is often referred to as “grooming.”</p>

<p>See, e.g., “Grooming Children for Sexual Molestation,” by Gregory M. Weber (Asst. Attorney General, Wisconsin): “Predators engage or ‘recruit’ their victims in different ways. . . . They may offer to play games, give rides, or buy treats and gifts as tokens of friendship. They may offer drugs or alcohol to older children or teenagers. And they almost always offer a sympathetic, understanding ear. Your parents don’t understand or respect you? I do. Other kids make fun of you? I know what that’s like—it was the same way for me when I was your age. They don’t trust you at home? Boy, I know what that’s like—your parents never really want you to grow up. But I trust you. I respect you. I care for you more than anybody else.”
<a href=“http://www.vachss.com/guest_dispatches/grooming.html[/url]”>http://www.vachss.com/guest_dispatches/grooming.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

206

<p>Epistrophy, that language is eerily familiar. Ever see Cape Fear?</p>

207

<p>DRJ4, I have to disagree. You have to be almost willfully blind to the impetus behind the e-mails to not have a red flag go up when you read them - and that’s not hindsight. The Louisiana recipient had enough common sense to be disturbed by them, his parents had enough common sense to pass the word along to those in a position to deal with it. “Not overtly improperr” and “could be explained” are fine legal arguments where proof is needed beyond a reasonable doubt. They’re not good enough excuses for “we decided not to do anything.”</p>

<p>Driver - I’m not conflating the IM’s with the e-mails. The e-mails by themselves should have triggered a serious investigation. And it now appears that there was a higher degree of awareness than the GOP leadership is admitting to, based on reports of others.</p>

208

<p>Kluge, I am a partisan conservative and have always said so. What I do not accept from you is your repeated twisting of my specific posts. You have done this repeatedly to me. When I make a statement, it’s a statement and pretty clear. What you do is take QUESTIONS and twist them into statements without ever answering them. I don’t know how many ways I can say that I’M NOT A LAWYER and frequently the questions that I ask are legal in nature. You then take those questions and turn them into some kind of statements, which they never were intended to be and attack me for words that I never posted.</p>

209

<p>DRJ:
I specifically said ‘emails’ in my post. I know the differece between ‘email’ and IM. I feel that the EMAILS should have raised a red flag.</p>

210

<p>Ah, you can go back and forth on this topic – but the bottom line is that when someone from a group who professes, indeed wins elections by pledging, so-called “family values” and who portrays gays as sinful miscreants, gets caught having email sex with a 16-year old male subordinate, well, there is just something so undeniably expos</p>

211

<p>

Apparently they did, and based on what is known of them, proportionate actions were taken. The IMs are a whole different class of red flag, and someone who was probably not a Republican, sat on them for a good long time in order to release them right at this particular point in time. With the full knowledge that his predatory behavior was very likely continuing. I want to know who those folks were.</p>

212

<p>Thank you Driver for posting that so eloquently. Obviously, I didn’t make clear that I was wondering what the whole story was without in any way excusing Rep. Foley.</p>

213

<p>Driver, you have truly oudone yourself with that post! Hey - I bet it was Clinton!!</p>

214

<p>If you wouldn’t publicize these during election season, when citizens are supposed to choose those who are best qualified and most worthy of being entrusted with the public’s trust, exactly when IS the right time?</p>

215

<p>Yes, I know, Kluge. Put your thinking cap on and you’ll figure it out about 20 posts from now.</p>

<p>

But you, who profess such concern about the sexualization of youngsters, should be concerned if such behavior was known about by Democratic policians, for months or more, but sat upon while the abuse continued simply to stage an October surprise. Or do I read you wrong, Mini?</p>

216

<p>ah, driver, so once again blame the messenger…nice try</p>

<p>Blame the democrats because the republicans have a sexual predator, K…guess I see that no matter what these guys do, some people will blame the people sharing the story as opposed to those that are the story</p>

<p>the republcians told all kinds of stories about what they knew, who they told, etc., guess to some that is okay…</p>

<p>truelly amazing that the dems are blamed because the lead man for the republicans on sexual online legislation is commiting the very acts they so much claim to despise, and then don’t monitor hiim or ask about him beyond, naughty boy</p>

<p>the republicans KNEW, yet did nothing…and to say, will, those email, they were just naughty, please, if a 50 year old man sent those to your son or daughter, I think you would not be so, welll, they were jsut naughty…</p>

<p>I heard that the republicans held onto the information so they wouldn’t be blamed for gay bashing…suuureeeee…</p>

<p>and to equate this with a sexual scandal,for shame,…this is very different</p>

<p>and we are supposed to believe the leadership knew nothing about the IMs or anything else besides the email, even though, they have been caught in mistruths? so just because Hassert denied he knew anyhting, then was proven he did, we are supposed to trust them know that they are telling truth…</p>

217

<p>“Blame the democrats because the republicans have a sexual predator, K…guess I see that no matter what these guys do, some people will blame the people sharing the story as opposed to those that are the story”</p>

<p>That’s not what she did, CGM, and you know it. We would like the WHOLE story to come out. The entire thing.</p>

218

<p>driver:
'Proportionate actions ’ were taken? Which were what? Excuse me, Mr. Foley? Please don’t be a predator. Oh pages watch out for Mr. Foley. HUH?
Report Foley to the campaign chair? What makes you so sure that the person receiving Foleys IM’s was not a Republican?</p>

219

<p>she said it probablly wasn’t a republican, so who is left…and has an agenda, as was implied</p>

<p>The republicans SHOULD have done something and we are supposed to belived all they tell us…they house leadership has been caught in fibs already with regards to this, and you think we should trust they will tell us the truth and really look into who knew what when…yeah right</p>

220

<p>I posted a link to an article on “Writing with style” over in the forum, thinking it might help with college essays. I think it’s a good thing for all of us to read.

</p>