The boy’s parents described the emails as overly friendly, but not sexual in nature, and that the family was uncomfortable with it and wanted it to stop. It went through the proper channels–majority leader’s office, clerk of the House, Director of the page program. Foley was told to stop contacting the boy, and apparently he did. That was the complaint they dealt with, and it worked. The other stuff–the really offensive stuff–apparently just came to the Republican leaders’ attention when it was published in the press.</p>
<p>I read those emails as suggestive he may be yet another horny, gay congressman. The emails approach flirtatiousness, but he seems to have been cautious at that point. I could understand that the family would be made uncomfortable by the personal attention and over-friendliness. As a parent, I would have done what the boy’s parents did. As a congressional leader, I would have told him to cease contact with the boy, to leave the pages alone, and to not get himself into trouble by sending dumb emails.</p>
<p>“If a 50 year old man sent those to your children driver, you would see no problems with them and if you did, what would they be…”</p>
<p>I know you didn’t ask me, but I would have a major problem with those emails because I would see them as grooming the child or creating a personal relationship where none should exist. 16 may be the age of consent in DC, but I do think the imbalance of power and age difference take a (heaven forbid) relationship out the realm of truly consensual.</p>
<p>Driver, I know you’re actually smarter than the line you’re trying to sell now. The response of the GOP to the creepy e-mails was not “proportionate” (what blog is pushing that term for you guys, anyway?) A “proportionate” response to seeing e-mails like that from an adult to a 16 year old would be to investigate whether the guy is a pedaphile. Ask other teens likely to have been contacted in a similar way. (Others were) Contact the head of the page alumni group (He’s already commented in the press.) Find out. It’s important. You don’t just whistle and look the other way because you don’t want to find out what you damn well ought to suspect at that point.</p>
<p>No, the Louisiana e-mails are not a smoking gun. You don’t haul the guy in and demand his resignation. You don’t throw him in jail based on that evidence. But you sure as hell undertake an investigation if it’s within your jurisdiction to do so. You don’t just ask him to stop sending “friendly” e-mails. Pedaphilia is not some obscure, poorly understood phenomenon. Foley’s behavior was, as Ariesathena pointed out, “textbook.”</p>
<p>I didn’t think it proportionate in any sense of the term, and I don’t have any dog in this fight.
They blew it, and now should take their lumps (as I would expect the party of the clueless to do in similar circumstances.)</p>
<p>and would you have let him stay in charge of the programs that are set up to stop just this kind of behavior? would you have let his office have pages? would have done a bit more research, or just taken him at his word? </p>
<p>and having SNow call them “naughty” jeesh</p>
<p>and the pages, not all democrats…imagine that</p>
“Proportionate” is a perfectly good word in this context, Kluge, and you should look things up before you try to appear smart. While on that subject, which left wing blog is pushing the term “pedaphilia” for you guys, anyway?</p>
<p>I haven’t seen the other emails… only the IMs. Check your sources, I could be wrong on that, but that’s pretty rare, as you well know.</p>
<p>the dispute is the tone of the warning- and the interpretation of the pages…fair enough…but turns out the page who felt it was a warning to avoid him waas the more accurate, don’t cha think?</p>
<p>So driver, if you found out the person who was trying to seduce your daughter via email was found later to have continue in his job where he was working to protect minors, and had had much more graphic conversations, guess those that knew but did the minimm, you would not be angry at them…got it</p>
<p>I do not have my secret CGM decoder ring with me right now, but if the question is: do you think that in retrospect the original emails to the boy were flirtatious in nature, the answer is yes.</p>
<p>Kluge, “proportionate” has the advantage of being a word; “pedaphile” does not.</p>
<p>Kluge, not fair. We actually DON’T have evidence of that. In fact, evidence suggests that there is a large group of child pornography collectors, web p-rowlers and the like who actually never touch anyone. Sick, maybe, but we need another word besides pedophile, just as we need a better word for Newt Gingrich’s disorder.</p>
<p>Zoosermom, I want to thank you for giving me the opportunity to kill two birds with one stone. Here are your most recent complaints:
and
So let’s look at what you did post earlier:
Now, since the GOP leadership admitted having the Louisiana e-mails in 2005, I’d interpret your “question” as being an assertion that those e-mails failed to constitute “any evidence whatsoever.” Granted, it’s not as clear as “When did you stop beating your wife” - hey, it’s just a question!! - but when you include an assumed fact in your “question” I take it as your assettion of the truth of that fact.</p>
<p>So, no, I don’t owe you an apology. You probably owe CGM one, but she’s got pretty thick skin, so I doubt that she’ll stamp her pretty little foot and demand it.</p>
<p>A gay man who enjoys the favors of teenaged boys aged 16 and above is technically not catagorized as a pedophile. There is another name for this proclivity, which escapes me right now, but which was brought to light during the Catholic priest scandal. Referring to this proclivity as pedophilia is disingenuous at best: it is nowhere near as rare as true pedophilia. This truth is another casuality of our shadowy grey world of political correctness.</p>
<p>legally, this man knew better, and in light that he was writing legislation to protect minors (of which a 16 year old is), and doing exactly what he pubically condemed</p>
<p>and we are supposed to believe now that Hassert knew nothing, that even though they fudged the story over the weekend about who knew what when, we are supposed to believe them that they had no clue…why in the world should we believe Hassert et al</p>
<p>and why were no democrats on the page committee told? its a bi-partisan group, yeah only republicans were told of the problem</p>