« Wizbang Podcast #40 is up | Main | What a peace of work »

The Washington Times Will Ask for Dennis Hastert's Resignation

***Updated***

Scroll down for updates

Drudge has the scoop:

WASHINGTON TIMES ON TUESDAY WILL CALL FOR SPEAKER HASTERT'S RESIGNATION, NEWSROOM SOURCES TELL DRUDGE... DEVELOPING... Editorial titled: 'Resign, Mr. Speaker': 'House Speaker Dennis Hastert must do the only right thing, and resign his speakership at once... Mr. Hastert has forfeited the confidence of the public and his party, http://wizbangblog.com/mt-static/images/formatting-icons/bold.gif Boldand he cannot preside over the necessary coming investigation, an investigation that must examine his own inept performance'... -- Washington Times, October 3, 2006...

Mark Foley is filth. He's even more pathetic by trying to hide behind his "I'm an alcoholic" excuse.

For additional information be sure to read Lorie's post from earlier today.

Update: The Democrats are using Foley's sick behavior to accuse the entire Republican Party:

1. Pay no heed to the distinction between the e-mails and IMs. There's no evidence (yet) that any Republican leaders knew about Foley's cybersex IMs. There's plenty of evidence that they knew how uncomfortable the "overly friendly" e-mails made at least one page. So the Dems will press the GOP on what they knew about the former and will constantly, in their press releases, refer to the "GOP's knowledge of the sexually explicit e-mails."

Did we expect anything different from these folks?

Update: The Washington Times editorial is up. Two important paragraphs:

Now the scandal must unfold on the front pages of the newspapers and on the television screens, as transcripts of lewd messages emerge and doubts are rightly raised about the forthrightness of the Republican stewards of the 109th Congress. Some Democrats are attempting to make this "a Republican scandal," and they shouldn't; Democrats have contributed more than their share of characters in the tawdry history of congressional sexual scandals. Sexual predators come in all shapes, sizes and partisan hues, in institutions within and without government. When predators are found they must be dealt with, forcefully and swiftly. This time the offender is a Republican, and Republicans can't simply "get ahead" of the scandal by competing to make the most noise in calls for a full investigation. The time for that is long past.


House Speaker Dennis Hastert must do the only right thing, and resign his speakership at once. Either he was grossly negligent for not taking the red flags fully into account and ordering a swift investigation, for not even remembering the order of events leading up to last week's revelations -- or he deliberately looked the other way in hopes that a brewing scandal would simply blow away. He gave phony answers Friday to the old and ever-relevant questions of what did he know and when did he know it? Mr. Hastert has forfeited the confidence of the public and his party, and he cannot preside over the necessary coming investigation, an investigation that must examine his own inept performance.

Update II: Another former page is disputing that pages were "warned" to stay away from Rep. Foley, an accusation by Matthew Loraditch that really fueled the fire of this story:

But another page, who asked not to be named told The Palm Beach Post, "The program in no official capacity warned us about it," and he said that Loraditch had posted an explanation for his comments to ABC on the college social network, Facebook.com.


[snip]

The other page said most pages are angry at Loraditch's comments and that the page program did its best to ensure the safety of pages, with strict rules and curfews.

Matthew Loraditch is now backtracking on his statements:

"Firstly, as to the ABC "Warned" story, while I may have inadvertently used the word, "warned," in communication, I can assure you it was not intended. The fact of the matter is in an informal situation a supervisor mentioned that Foley was a bit odd or flaky and did not connote by tone or otherwise that he should be avoided


[snip]

"Thirdly, I have stressed several key points in my contact with media that all situations with Mr. Foley occurred after we had finished our service as pages. That if anything had happed while we were in Washington, it would have been dealt with. That I have full faith and trust that any of the supervisors and staff we worked with would have properly dealt with any situation like the current one. That the page program is one of the most wonderful and educational experiences a youth can have.

Update III: The Wall Street Journal's Opinion Journal takes this story into a whole new direction, which means it may get a lot uglier:

In our admittedly traditional view, [Foley's explicit email exchange] was odd and suspect behavior, especially because Mr. Foley was well known as a homosexual even if he declined to publicly acknowledge it. And Mr. Hastert was informed that fellow Illinois Republican John Shimkus--who oversees the page program as part of a six-member board--spoke privately with Mr. Foley, who explained that the email was innocent.


What next was Mr. Hastert supposed to do with an elected Congressman? Assume that Mr. Foley was a potential sexual predator and bar him from having any private communication with pages? Refer him to the Ethics Committee? In retrospect, barring contact with pages would have been wise.

But in today's politically correct culture, it's easy to understand how senior Republicans might well have decided they had no grounds to doubt Mr. Foley merely because he was gay and a little too friendly in emails. Some of those liberals now shouting the loudest for Mr. Hastert's head are the same voices who tell us that the larger society must be tolerant of private lifestyle choices, and certainly must never leap to conclusions about gay men and young boys. Are these Democratic critics of Mr. Hastert saying that they now have more sympathy for the Boy Scouts' decision to ban gay scoutmasters? Where's Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi on that one?

As I said, this is going to get a lot uglier very quickly.

Update IV: Mark Levin is not at all happy with the Washington Times' editorial asking for Speaker Hastert's resignation. See here and here.

Update V: Hugh Hewitt responds to the Washington Times editorial with his post Don't Resign, Speaker Hastert. Swing Back.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Washington Times Will Ask for Dennis Hastert's Resignation:

» Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator linked with FBI looking into Foley e-mail scandal

» The American Mind linked with Hastert Now Key to Congressional Election

» Super Fun Power Hour linked with Washington Times to call for Speaker's resignation

» Keep Austin Corporate linked with My take on Foley - The elephant in the room

» Echoes Of Forever linked with Foley Madness

» Flopping Aces linked with Some Serious Crying From The Left & The Right

Comments (50)

Good. Don't let the door hi... (Below threshold)

Good. Don't let the door hit him in the ass.

Note the difference in resp... (Below threshold)
George:

Note the difference in response between Dems and Repubs. Democrats would be circling the wagons around their miscreants; Republicans want them out.

hey "geek" it would hit you... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

hey "geek" it would hit you in the nose 1st.

I'm a little lost here, wha... (Below threshold)
jp:

I'm a little lost here, what exactly did Hastert do to warrant resignation?

Republicans than:We ... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Republicans than:
We are the party of virtue and morality. We will bring family values back to Washington.

Republicans now:
We are just as bad as the Democrats, but reelect us anyways.

Libertarians then and now:<... (Below threshold)
smartguy:

Libertarians then and now:
Republicans = Democrats. Get rid of them all.

I can tell you that this ef... (Below threshold)
kirktoe:

I can tell you that this effort by liberals to destroy the GOP by using this scandal will only have the effect of angering the GOP base and energizing them for the elections.

Already when I think about this story I think more about the Democrat's attempt to use it to their advantage than I do the actual perverted behaivor of Mark Foley.

I don't particularly like H... (Below threshold)
mantis:

I don't particularly like Hastert, but I have to say I agree with Rob on this one. At least for now.

Republicans still can large... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Republicans still can largely be trusted to do some essential tasks of governement, like NSA wiretaps and terrorist interrogation to keep us safe.

Democraps cannot.

Therefore, it would take alot more Foleys to change my preference.

Not sure, absent more info, that Hastert is a resignation candidate.

Perhaps this is our brethren venting after a long 2 years of budget busting pork, failure to act on immigration in a meaningful way, and allowing ourselves to get caught up in the power we hold, becoming a bit more like the dreaded Democrats, who let no principle (if they have any) get in the way of their acquiring power.

Libertarians have had over ... (Below threshold)

Libertarians have had over 30 years to get people in office and still are spinning their wheels. I trust them on national defense as much as the donkeys.

People aren't going to magically vote in the LP.

Could some of the Media Typ... (Below threshold)
FireRescue:

Could some of the Media Types have access to a leak about the Oct surprise?

The News Media Journal.US (JB Williams) has finished a complete analysis of the laws against treason in the United States. It's no surprise to most that the NYT's and several other Media outlets (not exempt from prosecution) are hanging out on a long list of charges of treason. Now for my analysis of the present:

Almost every democrat currently serving in Congress could be arrested and tried for treason. They're acts in supporting the terrorists and leaking top secret data to the media and the terrorists would convict them in front of any fair jury.

Could this be the October surprise we have been promised. The FBI, CIA and NSA along with a host of police forces across the country make a mass arrest of democratic congress members and left wing media types and charge them with treason? Wouldn't it be funny to see congress come back into session with 5 democratic members left in the house and 2 in the Senate? That would be about the number left that haven't committed treason in the past three years.

If only the Justice Department had a leader this would be possible.

ROFL

Before we chop off heads of... (Below threshold)
GeminiChuck:

Before we chop off heads of Republicans, I sure would like to know who had the IM's and how they got them. I believe IM's (unlike email) would have to be captured close to when they were executed. Could a techy out there please explain how IM's executed last Spring could suddenly show up at a news outlet this week? Wouldnt someone had to have grabbed them off the server near real-time? Investigation - yes!; premature wrist-slashing - no!

Two newspapers had the emai... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Two newspapers had the emails...

WASHINGTON, Oct. 2 -- At least two news organizations were tipped off to e-mail messages sent by Representative Mark Foley long before the story of his sexually explicit remarks to teenage pages broke last week and forced him to resign.

The St. Petersburg Times and The Miami Herald received copies of an e-mail exchange between Mr. Foley, Republican of Florida, and a teenager, but neither paper gathered enough solid material to publish a story, according to statements by the papers' editors.

It was not until the exchanges were published online last week, first by an anonymous blogger, then on the ABC News Web site, that the story gained momentum and grew more damaging as other teenagers came forward.

...but if they had published the story without waiting for the "other teenagers" to come forward the newspapers would have been pilloried for "Rushing to Judgement" (I can hear Rush Lim'p'baugh (sic) pounding the table with his Ronald Reagan lunchbox now).

Now for reality -- Hastert blew it. He should have investigated, but he was afraid of what he'd find.

The trickle of information about Mr. Foley's messages, first made known to the news media almost a year ago, has raised questions not only for Congressional officials but also for news organizations about how to handle anonymous sources making explosive accusations in an election year.

At the same time, the papers' decisions not to report the accusations are being cited by Republican leaders as justification for why they themselves did not step forward earlier to try to stop Mr. Foley.

"He deceived his in-state newspaper when they each questioned him," Speaker J. Dennis Hastert said Tuesday. "He deceived me, too."

It was Hastert's responsibility to investigate - not the newspapers. It's our damned constitution, and he was being paid by us to be on top of things and investigate. IT WAS HIS JOB!

He should resign, before parents march to Capitol Hill with torches and rout the bastard out.

Note the difference in resp... (Below threshold)
muirgeo:

Note the difference in response between Dems and Repubs. Democrats would be circling the wagons around their miscreants; Republicans want them out.

Posted by: George

You all have been circling the wagons around Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the whole Republican congress who's combined misdeeds and whole sale sell-out of our democracy is far more damaging to our country then the despicable personal problems of guys like Foley.

I don't get the magnitude of this story where some pages may have been an issue compared to a bankrupt treasury, dead and maimed soldiers, an endless quagmire and endless corruption with no congressional oversight. The Foley issue is nothing compared to the big picture...heck its a positive distraction away from the administrations malfeasance.

So Hastert should have gone... (Below threshold)
bill:

So Hastert should have gone 'gay hunting'. I can see it now.

Speaker Peloser, got a nice ring to it doesn't it. Maybe she will assign Foley to her staff, after he has served his current purpose of course.

Dems : -have actual sex wit... (Below threshold)
Whats the difference?:

Dems : -have actual sex with teens, get pardoned by other Dems, stay in office.
-Have sex with interns, wag finger at nation and stay in office.
-Have a gay prostitution ring run out of your house, stay in office.

Reps : make inappropriate disgusting IMs with teens, resign.

Once again the Dems have de... (Below threshold)
Buckeye:

Once again the Dems have demostrated if you can't win on the issues then win any way you can.
I agree with Kirktoe. This angers me. The Dems are sinking lower and lower. One question that has not been answered: How long ago did the Dems know about Fole's folly, and why did they wait until now to unleash their holier than thou tirade? I guess anyone with half a brain can figure that out.

That should be Foley's foll... (Below threshold)
Buckeye:

That should be Foley's folly. Sorry

Just exactly when was the W... (Below threshold)
USMC Pilot:

Just exactly when was the Washington Times appointed the judge of who should or shouldn't be Speeker of the House? I can't seem to find the spot in the Constitution where the WT is granted that power. I have, on the other hand, granted myself the power to call for Nancy Pelosi's resignation, on the grounds that she is giving me nightmares.

So the wingnut response is:... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

So the wingnut response is: (a) Bill Clinton did the same thing; (b) there was a conspiracy on the part of the dems to withhold this until close to the elections; (c) Nancy Pelosi is a nasty so and so; (d) what's the big deal?; (e) the dems are bad; (f) the dems are still bad; (g) the dems are badder: (h) the dems are the baddest blah blah blah blah. The lefties crow and bleat politically about a terrible incident involving a sick man and a child

Jesus H. Christ we're talking about an adult trying to entice a child to have sex at worst or inappropriately flirting with one at best. And it gets turned into the usual political you're bad, no you're worse bs. It's pathetic. No matter what party is involved it's disgraceful behavior and if it was covered up the consequences should be obvious. if it wasn't there should be no consequences to anyone but Foley.

Talk about children. Talk about adult(s) trying to have a relationship with children. Talk about he consequences. But no, of course it has to descend to you're bad, no you're worse. You people are freeking pathetic. All of you. Only here could inappropriate sexual behavior get turned into a political argument. Disgusting. A pox on all of us.

I HATE to say it but I agre... (Below threshold)
Jack Oneil:

I HATE to say it but I agree with Lee's analysis of this. It was/is his job and he blew it. Lets not even go into all the things they could have done this session but did not. Face it, they let us down with their inaction and it sickens me.

All of the bickering is disgusting. I am tired of them towing the party line instead of doing what their constituents want. They should be loyal to their state and the people that elected them, not some playground power grab.

I'm speaking about all of them, not just Reps, but Dems too. They will do whatever it takes to push their agenda.

The Reps are pro-business and want to make money and that's cool because it means more opportunity for me to make money. I don't like all of the moral judgments though, for the most part, they are acting like preachers who know better. Reminds me of Bill Clinton and his finger waiving. Lets not forget about all the money they spent, disgusting.

Now the Dems. They are using the Iraq/terrorism angle to get elected so they can do what they want. What they want is to make the country "better". That means pushing through lots and lots of social programs because they know better. Go ahead and have abortions and do drugs, we love you anyway. This is the end goal, don't think its any different.

I hope the Dems take the Congress and the Reps keep the Senate so we can start to have some sort of balance and these lug-heads will be forced to work together.

Arrrrrggg!

I blogged this late last ni... (Below threshold)
Mike:

I blogged this late last night:

But what about Speaker Hastert? Did he do the right thing? Think about Hastert's dilemma. If he came down hard on Foley last year, maybe asking him to resign, then Foley would have instantly been turned into a gay rights martyr. (Don't doubt me on this; even though they were gunning for him, radical gay rights leaders would have cast him as a victim if someone else outed him first, especially a Republican.) Now, Democrats are saying that Hastert didn't do enough to take down Foley. It's a lose-lose situation.

I think the WSJ is on the right page here (no pun intended ...)

Lee wrote, "Now for reality... (Below threshold)
Mike:

Lee wrote, "Now for reality -- Hastert blew it. He should have investigated, but he was afraid of what he'd find."

Lee, I think you're missing the large hole in your logic: if Florida newspapers did not have enough evidence to run a story about Foley, and if Hastert only had the same information that was obtained by the newspapers, then it stands to reason that Hastert did not have enough evidence to make a credible case for disciplinary action against Foley.

In case you have forgotten, when charges are made that impugn the character of an individual, and those charges are not backed up with sufficient evidence, we call that McCarthyism.

"...it stands to reason ... (Below threshold)
Lee:

"...it stands to reason that Hastert did not have enough evidence to make a credible case for disciplinary action against Foley."

Right, initially perhaps -- but there clearly was smoke, and it is Hastert's job was to look for fire. He didn't. He looked the other way instead.

How exactly do you propose ... (Below threshold)

How exactly do you propose that Hastert "looked for fire"? Tapping a U.S. Citizen is illegal without a warrant (or so I hear), and the only real option is to question the pages, present and former. I doubt they would have fessed up if something illegal did happen.

As much as I find Foley disgusting and think he should be out of office yesterday, did he actually do anything illegal? As Rob at Say Anything pointed out, age of consent is 16 there. If Foley didn't hit on anybody under 16, then technically he didn't do anything illegal. Creepy and disgusting, yes (and I'd still want him out of office), but not illegal.

My question is, who knew about this and when did they know about it? If Hastert knew about a strange e-mail, that's one thing, but if he knew about the IMs and had copies, that's completely different. In that case he should resign (and go to trial if there's a case for it), but only if he had concrete evidence. Those IMs would have gotten him a warrant.

And if a Democrat knew about the IMs but was sitting on them until election time... well, I hope they stoke the fires hot for him/her. But that's only IF it's true.

I really hate it when people jump to conclusions before all the evidence is out. I would rather read the entire e-mail for myself to determine if Hastert should have known something was amiss or just chalked it up to Foley being eccentric or weird.

Can it be we in the Repub. ... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Can it be we in the Repub. Party have our own "easily aroused" set, like the hyper-emotional Dems?

This is similar to the conflation of no WMD stockpiles in Iraq=Bush Lied, People Died.

It's a non-sequitur to say that Foley's overly attentiveness=Child Rape.

He didn't have physical contact, apparently. These were 16+ year old males. Hardly defenseless.

While it is an ugly thing for him to send dirty IM's to them, it's hardly child rape or particularly scarring.

In fact, it may teach them, and all parents, to be on the lookout for this type of thing in our hyper-sexualized society--thanks, Dems, for that.

Yeah Mitchell and if young ... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Yeah Mitchell and if young women didn't wear short skirts by god they probably wouldn't be raped. And after all some of them might be 16 +. What a pathetic and disgusting attempt at trivializing Foley's behavior.

"These were 16+ year old... (Below threshold)
Lee:

"These were 16+ year old males. Hardly defenseless."

And are 15 year old males fair game for Republican pedophiles? How about 14? ...13?

The law is the law and crossing the line is crossing the line. Quit apologizing for pedophiles, Mitchell.

Huge/Pee: you just made my... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Huge/Pee: you just made my point.

You both now have us on a slippery slope to 13 year olds. And rape.

Any evidence he ever raped anyone? Any evidence he ever was in any way physical? Nope.

You guys are straining to make this into something it is not in the evidence we have.

Poor old Lee, he just can't... (Below threshold)
Scrapiron:

Poor old Lee, he just can't get the 13-14 YO's males off his mind. What's up with that? Fetish for 13-14 YO's males, Maybe?

Hang Foley, but these guys were above the age of consent and now it looks like the 'democrats' held this information for over a year. They have no plan for America so they gathered and saved what they hoped would be some more slime to win an election. Foley should have plenty of company on the gallows.

I go back to 2004 when UC released a study that said 46-47% of the American citizens should be under some type of Mental Health care. It was funny at the time since it was almost an exact match for the percentage of voters that voted for Hanoi John Kerry, a known traitor.

Now we have an almost exact match (again)for the 46-47% that are in need mental health care. It is a close match to the percentage of registered voters that the democrats have convinced that America cannot win the war on terror.

So a large percentage of Americans (all democrats) are convinced that America is done and will fall into a heap of sh** in a couple of years, but "the leaders of the terrorists think they have lost the war on terror and the war in Iraq".

Listen to the democrats and the females of the country will all be wearing burka's and everyone will be falling to their knee's five times a day to pray to a phony god (and that will be hard for a democrat that believes in nothing) or lose their heads.

But never forget, the democrats are concerned with your well being. What a joke. Cut and run cowards is the correct description of all of them.

You suggested Foley's actio... (Below threshold)
Lee:

You suggested Foley's actions were ok, despite the fact the page is under age, Mitchell - and since you said that Republican pedophiles can abuse underage boys in the page program my question to you was "how far under age is ok"?

Apparently you had something in your mouth at the time you replied, and you were unable to articulate a cogent answer. No surprise, then, that you'd advocate pedophilia on Capitol Hill - for Republican congressman at least -- I"m sure you would be all in tizzy if Foley was a Democrat.

I hardly think it is a News... (Below threshold)
914:

I hardly think it is a Newspaper's quote/unquote place to be asking for anyones resignation..

Pedophile's if thats what He turn's out to be are only deplorable in the conservative party..There the standard bearer's in the party of Donkey's..

Lee, where, exactly, did I ... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Lee, where, exactly, did I suggest Foley's actions were "ok?" That's another non sequitur.

You're batting a thou today.

Hastert needs to go as well... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

Hastert needs to go as well. Lee is right, it was his job and he simply failed to do it.

We can't afford to make these sorts of excuses for people when they are charged with helping to run our country. It's too important.

Mitchell,

He didn't have physical contact, apparently. These were 16+ year old males. Hardly defenseless.

As I said above, I think we need to hold these people to higher standards.

Regardless of whether you think he could defend himself, at age 16 he is a minor, and by the law, that is what is taken into consideration. 18 and above may be a different story, but almost as deplorable.

Absolutely regardless of how democrats have handled their scandals, the republicans need to take out the trash. We should strive to lead by example rather than by comparison.

I"m sure you would be al... (Below threshold)
scsiwuzzy:

I"m sure you would be all in tizzy if Foley was a Democrat.

Only because a dem wouldn't have stepped down.

Heralder, you and Lee fail ... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Heralder, you and Lee fail to keep your eye on the ball. My point was not that Foley shouldn't be dumped summarily and good riddance.

It was that this was something a bit more complicated than, "that old fella raped the 3 year old" and it was clear to Hastert, et al that we had a tragedy on our hands.

I hold Foley to a high standard. And, Hastert I hold to a reasonable one as well--if what little he knew was that Foley was "overly friendly," I'm not sure what he can do about it, absent more egregious conduct.

Read the WSJ this am; I haven't yet, but I understand this is a similar argument.

Don't confuse treatment of Foley and treatment of Hastert.

Sorry, meant to say "should... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Sorry, meant to say "should be dumped summarily and good riddance."

Sorry again, double negativ... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Sorry again, double negatives f'n with me. The newborn is keeping me up nights.

Has everyone so quickly for... (Below threshold)
millco88:

Has everyone so quickly forgotten about Hastert's defense of Jefferson, the guy who had about $100K in cash in his freezer on the basis of some kind of privilege?? Considering he was willing to take a politically stupid approach to THAT investigation, when it was pretty apparent what had happened, why should we be surprised that he didn't investigate Foley's actions more completely??

It doesn't look like it's a partisan issue with Hastert; it's a branch of govt issue. IOW, representatives of either party are owed a certain amount of deference regardless of the accusation. Now I think that's just a horrible approach, but at least it explains the behavior.

Here were the emails given ... (Below threshold)
nogo postal:

Here were the emails given to the FBI in july
http://www.citizensforethics.org/press/newsrelease.php?view=163

Mitchell: "I hold Foley ... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Mitchell: "I hold Foley to a high standard. And, Hastert I hold to a reasonable one as well--if what little he knew was that Foley was "overly friendly," I'm not sure what he can do about it, absent more egregious conduct."

The onus was on Hastert to investigate.

The fact that Hastert witheld what he knew about Foley from the Democrat member of the Page Program Oversight Committee shouws that Hastert's actions at that time were "politically motivated".

He was politically motivated to cover this up, and he failed to investigate.

The longer Hastert delays his resignation, the worse the Republicans look through all of this, and the longer the healdines will persist.

Lee, babble away.S... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Lee, babble away.

So, the sum of your argument is that he had a friendly email from the guy, and like Miami Herald, St. Pete Times, etc., he held back in disclosing it, but did address it to the appropriate chairman of the committee overseeing the Page program, and this constitutes . . . what, exactly?

Your taking something that in hindsight looks bad, because we now know about the alcoholism and Instant Message dirty talk, and trying to go back in time with it.

If Hastert knew only 1) friendly, non-sexual email, 2) addressed it with chairman Page program, how do we get to a firing offense?

You are a hysteria buff, Lee. Just like on WMD.

LeeThe headlines w... (Below threshold)
914:

Lee

The headlines will persist regardless of what Hastert does or does not do!

When are You and the Washington Times going to resign??

Mitchell,... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

Mitchell,

Heralder, you and Lee fail to keep your eye on the ball. My point was not that Foley shouldn't be dumped summarily and good riddance.

Perhaps not. But what caught my eye was the softening of the blow with: These were 16+ year old males. Hardly defenseless."

I realize that in this case you were attempting to show that it wasn't a rape issue, but apparently I took it to mean that it may be bad but it's not that bad.

Hence my point of view on standards for public officials.

No the case is not black and white, and yes there is the sensitivity involved in prosecuting the case. But that doesn't change the fact that Hastert was a lot less responsible than he should have been to not have looked into this more, which would have solved the issue without a share of the burden on his head.

You mention in a later post:

Your taking something that in hindsight looks bad, because we now know about the alcoholism and Instant Message dirty talk, and trying to go back in time with it.

That's a reasonable, I can see where that may have happened.

I can't state my position better than to just quote the article:

"Either he was grossly negligent for not taking the red flags fully into account and ordering a swift investigation, for not even remembering the order of events leading up to last week's revelations -- or he deliberately looked the other way in hopes that a brewing scandal would simply blow away. He gave phony answers Friday to the old and ever-relevant questions of what did he know and when did he know it?"

I would get fired from my job for that performance (not even asked to resign) and I'm just an artist.

As an aside, many on the left might find my position on Hastert deliciously hypocritical, as I've defended Rumsfeld for making mistakes that have had much more dire consequences.
The difference lies in complexity, but won't go into it deeper to avoid a derailing of the thread.

Heralder, sorry to jump on ... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Heralder, sorry to jump on you. I was really aiming for Lee, my favorite punching bag.

I agree that this type of thing is bad stuff, no doubt about it. I think Foley's a huge creep.

I just don't see that Hastert, with what we know now, was way off base. If he'd had more evidence, then, yes, I think he should be taken to task.

But it appears now that we had these emails that were not overtly sexual. I guess the white elephant in the room is that the man was rumoured to be gay, and appeared to be that way, to me anyway.

Being gay, and being attentive, go hand in hand and are not prima facie evidence of something more. Certianly the parents weren't willing to give that evidence despite having it. Remember, they wanted this kept quiet for their child's sake.

And, remember, the man had been in Congress since 1994 without allegations of anything overt, much less rape.

As a further reminder, here... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

As a further reminder, here is what Hastert had before him:

In one, Foley writes, "did you have fun at your conference. . .what do you want for your birthday coming up. . .what stuff do you like to do."

In another Foley writes, "how are you weathering the hurricane. . .are you safe. . .send me an email pic of you as well. . ."

I'm not sure that, of themselves, these would make a reasonable person believe that a 5-Alarm congressional hearing should break out to deal with it.

Nor do I think these suggest pedophilia, so let's tone down the "you're defending pedophiles!" nonsense.

Mitchell,No proble... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

Mitchell,

No problem, it's not often I'm arguing against alot of the posters here.

I see your points, my only point is it should have been investigated more. It's not like there has been no precedent for online predators. It's all over the television.

If I got handed an email from an older man who was requesting an email pic of an underage boy he wasn't related to, I would certainly dig deeper.

Agreed. If I were a parent... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Agreed. If I were a parent, I'd be like a Ninja on his ass.

Too much sexual predation these days. I have a 2 month old baby girl, and I think about it all the time. There is an aspect of our culture that grows daily, and it is sick.

There is one group that has... (Below threshold)
hermie:

There is one group that has yet to be heard from.

While the Dems and MSM are taking advantage of this and playing up the disgusting details over and over, what does the gay community think this will have on their political futures?

For years, Gay rights advocates have tried to separate the thinking that gays were pedophiles. Now, thanks to whoever in the MSM held back the IMs, thus making temporary political points for the Dems, the Foley=gay=pedophile is now fixed in voters' minds.

In an effort to get the GOP through Foley's disgusting behavior, the Dems have wiped out decades of gay rights advocates work. Somewhere there must be someone in that movement that is wondering who their friends in Congress and the MSM really ae.

Hey Heralder how far would ... (Below threshold)
j:

Hey Heralder how far would "dig" if "some drunk" ran off and hid while his "girlfriend" drowned. Hmmmm




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

tips@wizbangblog.com

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy