Do you have a link on that? That is bad, if true. I've got my donation packet on the coffee table, and you can prevent the Republicans from getting some $$$ if you can find me a link.

 

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2512756

 

This just happens to be the first one on the list, when I Googled it.

 

Spend your money as you see fit, Hearsay. I don't begrudge anyone the right to support a party, or candidate as they see fit - for whatever reason.

 

 

Frances

Unless I am mistaken, I think 75 Center would consider himself a conservative.

 

Come to think of it, that really doesn't matter. Why is it whining, if someone (conservative or liberal) points out the fact that Fletcher made some bad moves?

 

 

Frances

 

This thread is about Mark Foley. When you use a Mark Foley thread to take a shot at Kentucky's governor, it is whining. Kind of like this: "Boy that Foley is an idiot. Must be kin to Greg Stumbo."

 

Nowhere in his post did 75 try to point out that Fletcher made "some bad moves." Nice try to work that in there though.

This thread is about Mark Foley. When you use a Mark Foley thread to take a shot at Kentucky's governor, it is whining. Kind of like this: "Boy that Foley is an idiot. Must be kin to Greg Stumbo."

 

Nowhere in his post did 75 try to point out that Fletcher made "some bad moves." Nice try to work that in there though.

 

I believe the term is reading between the lines. Fletcher and Foley are two of the more prominent names that have been exposed as just not getting this new technology thing. Stupid is as stupid does.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2512756

 

This just happens to be the first one on the list, when I Googled it.

 

Spend your money as you see fit, Hearsay. I don't begrudge anyone the right to support a party, or candidate as they see fit - for whatever reason.

 

 

Frances

 

I think this article, read judiciously, explains quite a bit. I would be willing to bet that the teenage page's parent's unwillingness to press the issue (which is my experience is a normal response) has a lot to do with why we haven't heard about this earlier. It also appears that the Republican legislators involved timely disclosed this to the Republican leadership. I think they acted appropriately.

 

In my opinion, the Democrats are the ones who should be ashamed here. Though they claim that it was a Republican effort to "hide" the issue before elections, I read that they are angry that they almost did not have the issue to grind Republicans with before elections, and they're going to take that opportunity now. Where is their concern for the page and his family?

I believe the term is reading between the lines. Fletcher and Foley are two of the more prominent names that have been exposed as just not getting this new technology thing. Stupid is as stupid does.

 

75 Center -

 

Your explanation of the meaning of your original post (to billyrayjoebob) that "Stupid is as stupid does" is very apropos. On at least two levels.

 

 

Frances

I think this article, read judiciously, explains quite a bit. I would be willing to bet that the teenage page's parent's unwillingness to press the issue (which is my experience is a normal response) has a lot to do with why we haven't heard about this earlier. It also appears that the Republican legislators involved timely disclosed this to the Republican leadership. I think they acted appropriately.

 

In my opinion, the Democrats are the ones who should be ashamed here. Though they claim that it was a Republican effort to "hide" the issue before elections, I read that they are angry that they almost did not have the issue to grind Republicans with before elections, and they're going to take that opportunity now. Where is their concern for the page and his family?

 

I would say that that is some VERY judicious reading.

 

1) Foley committed an incredibly stupid act. That act was even more ludicrous, in light of his elected position, and one of the committees that he served on.

2) The parents chose not to pursue any legal action, other than to ask their Representative to intercede and have the emails stop (understandable).

3) The leadership of the Republican party was made aware of the situation (roughly one year ago).

4) Someone high in the Republican party chose not to do anything with it until it became public knowledge during an ABC interview.

5) Did someone in the Democratic party also have knowledge, and keep it in his back pocket, waiting for a politically opportune time to use it? Heck if I know, but even if that is true, it hardly excuses any of the above.

 

On a side note, I find the position taken by Fastbreak and TTC to be consistent with their conservative views. Conversely, I find it odd that anyone that wishes to attack Clinton on his indiscretions in a consensual affair with another adult would even remotely consider defending Foley.

 

Make no mistake, Hearsay - I realize that you are not condoning Foley's actions, rather, you are questioning the timing of the question being posed in the interview. Even if it is politically motivated, forcing this greaseball out of office is the right thing to do.

 

 

Frances

75 Center -

 

Your explanation of the meaning of your original post (to billyrayjoebob) that "Stupid is as stupid does" is very apropos. On at least two levels.

 

 

Frances

 

At least.

I would say that that is some VERY judicious reading.

 

1) Foley committed an incredibly stupid act. That act was even more ludicrous, in light of his elected position, and one of the committees that he served on.

2) The parents chose not to pursue any legal action, other than to ask their Representative to intercede and have the emails stop (understandable).

3) The leadership of the Republican party was made aware of the situation (roughly one year ago).

4) Someone high in the Republican party chose not to do anything with it until it became public knowledge during an ABC interview.

5) Did someone in the Democratic party also have knowledge, and keep it in his back pocket, waiting for a politically opportune time to use it? Heck if I know, but even if that is true, it hardly excuses any of the above.

 

On a side note, I find the position taken by Fastbreak and TTC to be consistent with their conservative views. Conversely, I find it odd that anyone that wishes to attack Clinton on his indiscretions in a consensual affair with another adult would even remotely consider defending Foley.

 

Make no mistake, Hearsay - I realize that you are not condoning Foley's actions, rather, you are questioning the timing of the question being posed in the interview. Even if it is politically motivated, forcing this greaseball out of office is the right thing to do.

 

 

Frances

 

There's no question about that.

 

However, to extend the hypothesis to claim that there was some sort of Republican "cover up" of the issue does not seem to be supported by the article - yet. Something may turn up later that makes that seem probable, but right now, the only thing that is probable is that the Democrats are taking this opportunity not just to castigate Foley, but to imply that the entire Republican leadership sat on it. I don't think the facts bear that out just yet. Thus my initial query for some facts on the issue.

75 Center -

 

Your explanation of the meaning of your original post (to billyrayjoebob) that "Stupid is as stupid does" is very apropos. On at least two levels.

 

 

Frances

 

I certainly meant it only to pertain to Foley and Fletcher, not anyone else. Sorry if anyone took it any other way. And for the record, I like Fletcher. Foley however, seems like a piece of garbage and it appears like there are others in my party who are right there with him in this case.

There's no question about that.

 

However, to extend the hypothesis to claim that there was some sort of Republican "cover up" of the issue does not seem to be supported by the article - yet. Something may turn up later that makes that seem probable, but right now, the only thing that is probable is that the Democrats are taking this opportunity not just to castigate Foley, but to imply that the entire Republican leadership sat on it. I don't think the facts bear that out just yet. Thus my initial query for some facts on the issue.

 

To be honest, I don't think I would use the term "cover up" when discussing how the situation was handled by the top people in the Republican party. I think it would be better classified as a case of "let's hope this blows over", rather than an active attempt to sweep it under the rug.

 

 

Frances

Serious question: if the response to this incident was insufficient, what would have been the appropriate response?

 

Also, I found it surprising that any votes for Foley in the upcoming election would automatically count for whoever runs in his place.

Why hasn't Foley been arrested? IMO this is a crime of a sexual predator. The e-mails are the evidence. He should already be charged and at least have to post a bond and face a trial.

 

NBC just reported that key Republicans have known about this for a year. More than likely key Democrats knew about it too and have waited for the most advantageous time to expose it. But it doesn't matter, if people knew about this and didn't take action when they first discovered it, then they're definiety guilty of something as well, regardless of what party they belong to.

One reason he has not been arrested is because "he is someplace where no one can find him" according to CNN. Also there was a former page on ABC that says they were warned about Foley as early as 2001 by House Clerk's Office. My question is, if ABC News can find out about this, why not the leadership of the House, who have apparently known for awhile that something wasn't exactly right?

Why hasn't Foley been arrested? IMO this is a crime of a sexual predator. The e-mails are the evidence. He should already be charged and at least have to post a bond and face a trial.

 

NBC just reported that key Republicans have known about this for a year. More than likely key Democrats knew about it too and have waited for the most advantageous time to expose it. But it doesn't matter, if people knew about this and didn't take action when they first discovered it, then they're definiety guilty of something as well, regardless of what party they belong to.

 

What crime would you have them charge him with? Perhaps additional details will become known which will change the complexion of Foley's trangressions but right now it appears that he sent grossly inappropriate emails. But grossly inappropriate emails are just that - inappropriate - not illegal.

I would add that what we know so far should be enough to open an criminal investigation but not enough to arrest him. His quick resignation is an indication that there is more to be discovered.