Party of Family Values: Foley Resigns

Parent Cafe
221

<p>Driver:
Is this advice for analyzing Foley’s Emails?</p>

222

<p>What did the emails say, gla?</p>

223

<p>so driver if your 16 year old child got those emails from some adult person they barely knew, it would be jsut fine with you…cause that is what you imply from your last question. about what was said in the emails</p>

<p>guess my standards of what is appropriate between adults and minors is a bit higher than others</p>

224

<p>What did the emails say, cgm?</p>

225

<p>you haven’t read them?</p>

<p>asking him to send a picture, talking about another teens body, asking about sending a bday present, talking his own training</p>

<p>and if the parents found it inappropriate and the kid found it sick, guess they judgement isn’t enough for some</p>

226

<p>

Now, the traditional GOP method of dealing with this would be to smear the guy who reported it. Zoos obviously got the memo early:

Unfortunately, Loraditch was a page for a Republican congessman, and presumably is a republican himself, which makes it tough. </p>

<p>Yes, it’s fascinating to watch Driver and Zoos repeat the right wing blog flashes about how to divert attention from the painfully clear reality of the situation which is unfolding.</p>

227

<p>It is not smearing to state that the gentleman has said different things. He has. But feel free to add your own spin to my words. Do you even need to converse with other people or can you just take both sides all by yourself?</p>

228

<p>

The right time to publish knowledge of those IMs was as soon as they were discovered. If they were known to anyone before last Friday, that person should be treated as an accessory, in my mind, and I don’t care what political party they belong to.</p>

229

<p>So, we have a guy who likes to work out emailing a young athlete complimenting him on his physique and saying he wants to send him something–perhaps oh, Arnold’s “Pumping Iron”–and that he wants a picture of him. Sure, my eyebrow raises slightly, and I might drop a line to someone telling them to tell him to cut it out. But if I find out that someone who works for someone who really, really wants to be the next Speaker knew about these truly vulgar and likely illegal IMs for months and didn’t do anything about them immediately because s/he wants an October surprise–now I’m truly outraged.</p>

<p>Kluge, how come you’re so lax about posting links to your quotations?</p>

230

<p>zoos:
what are the different things Loraditch has been saying. Are they substantive, or can they just be misquotes?</p>

231

<p>driver:
Are you saying that Nancy Pelosi has been covering up for Foley? Why weren’t Democrats notified that there was a problem with Foley? Why did Alexander report this to Reynolds? Anyone care to guess?</p>

232

<p>Wondered how long it would take to bring up the “Catholic abuse scandals.” :)</p>

233

<p>Sorry Driver - just lazy I guess. Here you go: <a href=“http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/10/gop_staff_warne.html[/url]”>http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/10/gop_staff_warne.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>And sorry about your post #229 - you’re really trying too hard now - even for you. The e-mails raise a stinkin’ big red flag on their face. If you have to see the IM’s before you’re moved to action you’re being willfully ignorant - which is basically what the GOP “leaders” are being accused of, as I see it.</p>

234

<p>Classic. Notice how the headline refers to “emails” but the body of the article refers to IMs. Now, I think Brian Ross and his editors know the difference between the two, and that this is a very important element of the story and its timeline. I think Kluge knows, too. Well, maybe not Kluge. Apparently not. This is clearly a deliberate conflation of two separate sets of communications.

</p>

<p><a href=“http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/10/emails_show_fol.html[/url]”>http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/10/emails_show_fol.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

235

<p>GLA, from the NY Times and ABC News, the difference was saying that he was warned to stay away versus finding Foley odd. I don’t know if it was a misquote, that is certainly possible, but they are not the same statements. I’m sure there will be clarification at a later time and then we’ll know exactly what was what and when.</p>

236

<p>For those who haven’t read the emails; Itstoomuch that you haven’t and if you do be advised the banner of the link to the emails state, “Reader Descretion Stongly Advised”. I would add that the emails border and possible in the realm of “X”, “Adult” reading.</p>

<p>For those who want to make this a political matter, America’s friends, unsympathetic friends and enemies, are certainly looking at this thread and Republican/Democratic Political responses. The intrepretations, if I was a nonidiot, is not flattering. </p>

<p>This is, IMHO, a criminal investigation with dangerous political overtones that far exceeds Foley, Congress, and the President.</p>

237

<p>“driver:
Are you saying that Nancy Pelosi has been covering up for Foley? Why weren’t Democrats notified that there was a problem with Foley? Why did Alexander report this to Reynolds? Anyone care to guess?”</p>

<p>Gla, this is why I asked about the back story. I have no idea what it is, but the blogger who presented the documents did so in a manner that was somewhat suspicious. Again, it may turn out to be nothing because we simply do not know yet (which is why it was a question and not a statement), but what if the democratic leadership did know, held onto these documents and then strategically leaked them? That’s not really outside of the realm of possibility. Again, not a statement, just a question. Which is no way mitigates the fact that Foley is a pig.</p>

238

<p>Well, looks like Clinton did have a brush with similar case.</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.snopes.com/politics/sexuality/reynolds.asp[/url]”>http://www.snopes.com/politics/sexuality/reynolds.asp&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

239

<p>“The right time to publish knowledge of those IMs was as soon as they were discovered. If they were known to anyone before last Friday, that person should be treated as an accessory, in my mind, and I don’t care what political party they belong to.”</p>

<p>So either that’s exactly as happened, which puts egg on Republican faces, or they were known by Republicans before that, which puts more than egg on Republican faces.</p>

<p>And, no, this has nothing to do with Patrick Kennedy. It does have a lot to do with the party of family values. (The party of clueless gets what is coming to it at another time. ;))</p>

240

<p>I don’t think Hastert would be coming out so strongly on this if he believed the Republicans covered up the IM’s. He’s calling for an investigation of how ABC got the IM’s.</p>