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

You think at work you can do this. A 50 year old boss could send out e-mails like that.

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

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.

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

You said,” Your “teenagers

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

You are a smart guy. you cannot be this blind!

(…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

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!

Read for yourself.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/09/foley_resigns_o.html

This classic case of someone of power using it to take advantage of employees, what is worse he did it to minors. He is an elected official, whose job is to serve the people.

Look, I almost agree with the Washington Times article that Hastert should resign on the basis of “negligence”… which I think there is a reasonable case for.

But I’ve learned over time that the winners and the survivors write the rulebook and write the history books… and I’ve seen one too many Republicans resign over minor stuff where the Dems never felt ANY pressure to live up to the same standards.

For example, if what you are saying is true, then Trent Lott’s resignation as House Majority Leader over his (taken out of context) compliments of Strom Thermond should have put pressure on “KKK” Robert Byrd… but it didn’t and these things rarely works out that way.

–Rob McEwen

The most illicit and revolting IM was between Foley and a page who was 18 at the time of the IM. But ABC News reported in this particular case that the page was “under the age of 18.” Very careless reporting!

Tell you what, if you had scandelous affair with an 18 year old girl, but the local newspaper ran a story reported that the girl was 16 or 17, I think that you understand this is no small detail!

>How did Foley get the screen
>ID’s for these kids?

I still don’t see anything in the IMs that isn’t consentual. Plus a screen ID is something that can be said in a causual converation. It is typically much easier to remember than a phone number…. so I’m not sure that you are getting at here?

Even if Foley never communicated like this with someone under 18, what he did was still wrong and he should have resigned.

But the real question is, does ANYONE have ANY solid evidence (not hear-say or speculation) that Foley communicated (via IM, e-mail, phone, etc) with ANY pages or former pages in a sexual way where that person on the other end of the conversation at that time was under 18?

If we can’t answer that question, much of this other stuff is almost besides the point.

–Rob McEwen

This is a good question.

• When you say, “The party needs to get rid of anyone evolved ASAP“… why stop there? If this is really an issue of safty of “the children

The only carelessness I can see in this story is by Republicans in not reporting and acting on the reports.

It didn’t have to be a public confrontation or torture in Gitmo.

A little bait and a sting would have worked.

BTW,

How did Foley get the screen ID’s for these kids?

OPS!

Nice security

It remains to be seen exactly who knew what when… but it is “easy” for a guy like Blunt to “monday morning quarterback” this thing and pile on a congressman who already resigned in disgrace.

It is much harder to accuse a congressman of such when there is scant and VERY inconclusive evidence at a time when that congressman is at the height of his power.

Also, just because an aide or some other pages knew more specific details didn’t necessarily mean that the Republican leadership knew anything about this situation.

One thing that is easy to forget is that the leaders in Congress have much more responsibilities than just the page program and there are HUNDREDS of congressman… even HUNDREDS of Republican congressman… For example, I’d bet that months go by between one-on-one conversations between Hastert and most Republican Representatives.

When you say, “The party needs to get rid of anyone evolved ASAP“… why stop there? If this is really an issue of safty of “the children”, then why not target ALL involve, regardless of party?

As sick to my stomach as I am about Foley’s behavior, I’m also getting ill about what I preceive on this thread to be a pretense of “lets protect the children”, when the motive seems for many seems as much (or more??) to be “lets use this to tear the Republican party apart just before an election”.

–Rob McEwen

The party needs to get rid of anyone evolved ASAP. This story is so bad it could kill 2008.Now it looks like a Republican aide was the one who leak the e-mails. I would bet they had enough of doing nothing. You have to know when to cut your loses.

Alexander Bolton

The source who in July gave news media Rep. Mark Foley’s (R-Fla.) suspect e-mails to a former House page says the documents came to him from a House GOP aide.
That aide has been a registered Republican since becoming eligible to vote, said the source, who showed The Hill public records supporting his claim.
The same source, who acted as an intermediary between the aide-turned-whistleblower and several news outlets, says the person who shared the documents is no longer employed in the House.
But the whistleblower was a paid GOP staffer when the documents were first given to the media.

http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/100506/news2.html

If that was the case the teacher, coach Congressman would of said the photo was for X or Y. Yet if they were strange statements that made my kid call the guy sick 13 times, I still would on gone to the school and police ASAP.

You are a smart guy, I am sure you would not of done what Hastert did or other party leaders.

This is how an adult acts,

Rep. Roy Blunt of Missouri, third-ranking GOP leader, pointedly told reporters he would have handled the Foley matter differently than Hastert, had he known of it.
“I think I could have given some good advice here, which is, you have to be curious, you have to ask all the questions you can think of,

And wouldn’t you feel REAL embarrassed if you came to the school after that phone call and found out that your child’s picture was intended on a collage of photos on a billboard honoring particular children for some type of achievement?

Again, in the context of knowing more about Foley, this photo request seems very, very sick… but, otherwise, under “normal circumstances”, Foley could have merely wanted to put the photo in a newsletter to constituents. (“here is my page who survived Katrina”)

–Rob McEwen

Anyway, in the IMs the page identifies himself as being under 18.