Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] [POLITICS] Dump House Leader for Protecting Foley

["Vern Green" <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

While I tend to agree with you, I would be surprised if there were a number of congressmen off the record that said something to the effect of "I had heard that before, I am not suprised."

 

We all have information of this sort about people we know. While my religion expresses that engaging in gossip is a sin, it is a sin that many people are guilty of committing. I have no doubt in my mind that there were indications this was happening with Foley, but because of the nature of the accusations and the lack of available evidence, there is little action anyone could take on it.

 

It is one thing to overhear pages who are warning each other, "Stay away from Foley, he has a particular "appetite", and totally another thing to actually accuse someone of inappropriate behavior.

 

I am not saying that the actions of anyone who might have know about this were inappropriate, but I do question leadership's handling of the situation and in particular Hastert's claim that he did not know anything more about it. It should be his job to know.

 

I cannot let him off so easily, and while I do not expect him to resign, nor would I want him to, I think he should be taking inventory of how he handled the situation and ensure he does not repeat this failure.

 

On 10/4/06, Mike Miller <EMAIL:PROTECTED> wrote:

On Wed, 4 Oct 2006, Vern Green wrote:

> I am not so sure I can let Hastert off so easily. This kind of thing is
> probably well known. I have no doubt that Foley was doing similar
> actions all the way back to 1995 when he was elected. It is hard to hide
> this sort of thing because these teenage boys will talk to each other.
> Indeed this article would sustantiate my claim:
>
> http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20061004-064058-6521r
>
> Now that does not mean the republicans knew for sure, but it raises a
> number questions to me. Of course, with this type of information out
> there that early, I find it surprising that the democrats did not know
> about it as well. These types of rumors spread faster than a California
> wild fire.
>
> So we have to ask ourselves a question, why now? We should also ask
> ourselves what did the members of congress know before. The incident
> Hastert refers to is one issue and is not all that much compared to what
> the latest incident is. To be honest I think the story is one of those
> situations where congresspersons, both democrat and republican have
> probably heard the rumors but wrote the rumors off as just rumors.
>
> I have no doubt that more people knew of Foley's appetite before now.


I don't think the Democrats would have known about Foley's interest in the
Congressional pages and kept that a secret for many years.  That wouldn't
make sense, but they would keep it a secret for up to two years so that
they could use it as an "October surprise."  They could have held it until
it was too late to take Foley's name off of the ballot.  If they Democrats
knew that Foley was gay, they might have kept that a secret forever,
because they don't like to use that against people, but the thing about
teenage boys is something they would definitely use against him.

One thing is for sure, if any politician ever claims to be doing something
because he "cares about the children," he is almost certainly lying.
People who appear to be shocked by what Foley did are just playing us.
That's not to say that it's OK.  Everyone agrees that it was wrong and he
has resigned, but every politician now has to figure out what to say to
make the best of the situation for himself.  Being shocked and caring
about the children can work for them.

Mike

_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion

-- 
Thanks
F Vernon Green 
_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion