You can read the article here: http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20061002-102008-9058r.htm
The Mark Foley internet sex predator scandal is working it’s way through America’s newspapers and it appears that the Washington Times is the first paper to call on the resignation of Speaker Dennis Hastert.
If everything holds to be true as is being reported by ABC News, it would seem appropriate that those in leadership that knew about this stuff and did nothing need to be replaced. They just may be a little out of step with mainstream America.
It’s hard to see the Speaker resigning this close to the elections, but it’s also hard to imagine that he has much credibility in light of doing virtually nothing about the situation over email messages and Mark Foley.
What is the feeling here on this situation?
{ 160 comments }
← Previous Comments
Rob,
We are talking about Teenagers? No one can debate, that this is about a line out of “context”.
It is over and the news is only going down hill. It is time to stop the bleeding!
Not defending Foley actions in the slightest… but I do think that it is wrong to accuse someone of sexual misbehavior with those “under the age of 18″ AND sending these types of messages “to Minors”
(…using direct quotes from that ABC article…)
…when, in fact, so far, I have yet to see proof that the recipients were under 18 at the time.
Your “teenagers” rhetoric is cute, but “legally” besides the point. If you want to advocate that the legal age of adulthood should be raised higher than eighteen or nineteen, wonderful… but that is another topic for another day.
–Rob McEwen
Rob,
You are a smart guy. you cannot be this blind!
>you cannot be this blind!
Maybe you are misunderstanding me or thinking that I’ve said something that I didn’t actually say?
Otherwise, I’ll let you have the last word.
–Rob McEwen
Rob,
You said,” Your “teenagers
Rob,
Please read,
Sen. Mike DeWine, R-Ohio, who is in a tight battle for re-election against Democratic Rep. Sherrod Brown, said last night that “if anybody in the leadership had information and didn’t take the appropriate action with that information, then they’re going to have to resign.”
“Did they know he was a predator?” DeWine asked, referring to Republican Mark Foley of Florida, who resigned from Congress last week after publication of the e-mails to former House pages. “Did they have reason to believe he was a predator? And if either one is true and they didn’t do anything, they should resign.”
Rep. Deborah Pryce, of Upper Arlington, the No. 4 House Republican, said that “anyone who was aware of these instant messages needs to take responsibility. Anybody who had knowledge of that needs to step down.”
http://www.columbusdispatch.com/election/election.php?story=217144
Rob,
What I’m wondering is if the House has a form that the pages fill out that includes email addresses and IM screen names.
And, to your point, to correct you, if at my age, I contact someone’s 18 year daughter who works for me, and I got their email from my employment records…
But, that didn’t happen. What happened, is a gay Republican House Member went out of his way to target employees (pages).
That is against the law. Worse than crossing a border without a passport.
Holding the door while he did that … giving him access to email addresses … if the address were given in employment records …
More than has been reported.
The only carelessness I see is in Washington.
Why would I ask an underaged employee for his/her non-work (private) email address or IM screen name?
There is no defense for this behavior.
Democrats have been screaming sexual harrassment for decades!
And, the talk radio response?
It’s just the normal workplace environment.
I have no reason to ask an employee for their IM screen name or private email address.
Are you suggesting that giving out your IM screen name is common practice in the workplace? So casual and usual that strangers wind up IMing you, emailing you, and asking your sexual details three months after you leave?
You should not be defending this behavior on any level.
The speaker needs to go now.
John and Mad Dog,
I can fully 100% agree with DeWine and Pryce without any inconsistancy with anything I’ve said in this thread. Initially, I had a problem with DeWine’s word “information” as being too vague… but in the context of his other sentences, I think he defines it in a way that I can agree with.
And I’m not “defending this behavior “. But I do think that pages and various staff members as well as congressman probably become friends over time, as do co-workers in any work situation. To exchange personal e-mails and IMs, in MOST circumstances, is really not that big of a deal.
Everything ya’ll keep posting would make perfect sense if we could find just one message of a sexual nature that Hastert was aware of before now. particularly if the recipient really WAS a minor at the time. But there is nothing remotely like this of which Hastert had knowledge.
But it sure sounds like you WANT that piece of the puzzle to be there!
BTW – Mad Dog… do you now have a problem with consentual sexual relationships between two adult males? Sure sound like it from your wording and tone?
–Rob McEwen
Rob,
You think at work you can do this. A 50 year old boss could send out e-mails like that.
I should mention that I have an undergraduate degree in Music Education from FSU… and, as a trained teacher, I tend to think about these things more so that others. Therefore if I conduct a private meeting with an employee, I keep the door propped open!
But I don’t expect others to think about these things and I still say that sharing e-mail addresses and IMs is generally considered to be not a big deal.
–Rob McEwen
← Previous Comments
Comments on this entry are closed.