http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6189883&ft=1&f=1057

"Page Problems: Despite its long history, the program was nearly eliminated two decades ago. In 1983, a congressional investigation turned up evidence that two House members, Reps. Daniel B. Crane and Gerry Studds, and a senior House employee had engaged in sexual liaisons with pages.

Crane, a Republican from Illinois, admitted to a sexual relationship with a 17-year-old female page. He was censured and voted out of office in 1984. Studds, a Democrat from Massachusetts, said the sexual affair he had with a 17-year-old male page was consensual, and accused the House ethics committee of violating his privacy. Studds was also censured, but won re-election the following year and served in Congress until his retirement in 1996.

In the wake of the investigation, Congress overhauled the page program and adopted new protections. A dormitory for pages was created near the Capitol, and the minimum age of participation was raised from 14 to 16."


The above exerpt goes back to a previous sex scandal with House Pages. Rep. Daniel Crane, a Republican, was voted out of office and rightfully so.

Rep. Gerry Studds, a Democrat, was re-elected several times.

I have to ask...why??? What was the difference then & now with former Rep. Mark Foley???

"What was the difference then & now with former Rep. Mark Foley???"

Foley resigned. Had he stayed he would have been censured. Both Studds and Crane were censured.

Foley Resigned. Both Studds and Crane ran for re-election. Studds lost. Crane won, and served for another 20 years.

I have no idea if the Board of Pages existed then, so I can't make any comparison. If there was one, and if he basically ignored warning signs for years, as in the case of Shimkus, then he was complicit in the wrongful acts, just as Shimkus is today. If the Speaker had been made aware of a problem then, as Hastert was at least a year ago in the Foley case, he was complicit, just as Hastert is now.

There you have the differences. I have no idea what bearing they have on the fact that Foley was allowed to prey on pages, and the House leadership, along with the Chairman of the House Page Board did almost nothing for quite a while after being warned about Foley's activities. Those differences don't change the fact that the information was not given to the full Board, as it should have been. Say what you will, but those are accepted facts, and previous behavior of anyone in Congress doesn't chage those facts.

I think anyone on these boards, were he to be honest, would agree that, if this was Ted Kennedy chasing a female page, and Democratic leadership did almost nothing ("Knock it off, Ted." "OK, I will, but I didn't do anything wrong." "Well, don't do it again."), LR, Scotty, and some others would be screaming about a Democatic cover up of salacious crimes. The main difference then is that I would be agreeing with you. (Although I would be pointing out that, as yet, no crime has been proven, nor has there been an indictment.) But that's another story.

Is anyone willing to go on record saying that, with the knowledge that the Republican leadership had (a known gay asking for pictures of male pages, asking them what they were wearing, and having a reputation so questionable that the pages themselves were warned about him for years), a "Knock it off" was the proper response? To those who have children that age, is that an acceptable response from the people you have entrusted your child to?* Is a congressman's reputation (or a party's) more important that the safety of the children working in Congress?

What Foley did, and we do not yet know all that he may have done, may or may not be a crime. But what is certain is that it was wrong, and some people, whose job it is to take care of such things, did very little to stop it. Maybe I am naive, but I expected better from everyone involved.

*How many of you would accept Hastert's excuses from a school principal if it was your son or daughter that worked as an aide to a counsellor, and that counsellor e-mailed you child asking what he or she was wearing? Tell me, LR, what's the difference here?

Republicans run on "family values"

Republicans in Illinois (not Dems) were responsible for junking the candidacy of Jack Ryan... for having sex with his own wife. I still don't know why the Republicans made this choice... Democrats would have stuck with him and made it work rather than bringing in a crazed out of touch sure loser to replace him.

Yeah, there is some hypocrisy, but Republicans do seem to build themselves a nice high horse to talk about morality and family values. It isn't anyone's fault that when they fall from it that it's a longer way to the ground.

It used to be in the UK that a financial scandal couldn't hurt a Conservative politician - it was almost expected they'd be sharp business-people. On the other hand, Labour politicians could ride out sexual scandals (short of illegal actions, of course) - what did anyone expect of free-thinking socialists?

However, sexual scandals would destroy Conservatives in the public eye, and financial double-dealing would do the same for Labour-ites.

I don't think it's quite the same now, and surely it isn't in the US - where all politicians are obliged to pretend that they are (Christian) saints.

quote:

Originally posted by newnickname:
It used to be in the UK that a financial scandal couldn't hurt a Conservative politician - it was almost expected they'd be sharp business-people. On the other hand, Labour politicians could ride out sexual scandals (short of illegal actions, of course) - what did anyone expect of free-thinking socialists?

However, sexual scandals would destroy Conservatives in the public eye, and financial double-dealing would do the same for Labour-ites.

I don't think it's quite the same now, and surely it isn't in the US - where all politicians are obliged to pretend that they are (Christian) saints.

Sexual scandals in Britain? Well, the Deputy Prime Minister is still in office, and still married, even though he was regularly having adulterous sex with his secretary (literally in his office. Whatever happened to that bloke Clinton? ). Pehaps that proves the old saying: he is a Labour politician, after all

quote:

Foley Resigned. Both Studds and Crane ran for re-election. Studds lost. Crane won, and served for another 20 years

DG-I assume you got these turned around. I know for a fact Crane was beat in his re-election bid.

Studds was re-elected several times. His preference was the young males, just as Mark Foley...

As for Dennis Hastert, he has spoken. Personally I think he should quit apologizing and go on offense. Mark Foley is the real culprit here. He should be the one giving explanations for his own actions.

Sorry for the mix-up. I agree that Foley is the real culprit. But it is very obvious he had guys turning a blind eye to his actions. Just what are the duties of the Chairman of the House Page Board? If Hastert is, as he says, in charge of the House, isn't what happens in the House part of his responsibility, especially when it is one of his own party that was preying on the pages, and had been for years?

I have no idea what Hastert shoild go on the offensive about. Should he blame Democrats for allowing Foley to continue? Should he blame the sole Democrat on the Page Board for not being told that there were complaints about Foley? If, as you say, "Mark Foley is the real culprit here", what about those who aided and abetted his actions by doing nothing to stop him?

I'll repeat some of what I said in my last post, since I must assume that you missed it somehow.

Is anyone willing to go on record saying that, with the knowledge that the Republican leadership had (a known gay asking for pictures of male pages, asking them what they were wearing, and having a reputation so questionable that the pages themselves were warned about him for years), a "Knock it off" was the proper response? To those who have children that age, is that an acceptable response from the people you have entrusted your child to?* Is a congressman's reputation (or a party's) more important that the safety of the children working in Congress?

How many of you would accept Hastert's excuses from a school principal if it was your son or daughter that worked as an aide to a counsellor, and that counsellor e-mailed you child asking what he or she was wearing? Tell me, LR, what's the difference here?

It comes down to this; either what Foley was doing was wrong or it wasn't. If it was, anyone who had an inkling of what he was doing should have investigated or taken it to the House leadership to invesigate, and that leadership had an obligation to get to the truth of the matter. You give the impression that it was acceptable for Foley to get away with whatever he did because others have in the past. You seem to care more about protecting your party's reputation than about the children under their care. Hastert go on the offensive??? Isn't allowing a child predator to keep up his activities offensive enough?

"How many of you would accept Hastert's excuses from a school principal if it was your son or daughter that worked as an aide to a counsellor, and that counsellor e-mailed you child asking what he or she was wearing? Tell me, LR, what's the difference here?"

For one thing this is the House of Representatives, not a school house. Dennis Hastert while he is the Speaker, he certainly is not the only person of authority and he certainly has a lot more duties than keeping an eye on the sexual activities of the members.

As for the activities of Tom Foley. Assuming all the allegations are true, and it appears there are enough IM's to show they are, then he needs to be held accountable. And the fact he resigned the way he did, I tend to believe these allegations are true. He would have stuck around to fight them if they weren't.

Now what would the situation concerning retired Rep. Gerry Studds have to do with this situation. It needs to be pointed out, he DID have sex with a male page. He not only kept his seat, he was re-elected several times. He did not resign for the good of his party. He was not forced out.

This shows the very hipocracy of the Democratic Party. Especially rising the Foley situation during this election season, while conviently ignoring the history of their own party in the not so distant past.

So we are to elect this bunch to take over Congress & weed out the sexual predators??? The Republicans HAVE shown they are willing to do that from their own party. Looking back in history, the Democrats prefer to keep theirs around and keep re-electing them.

The fact is that Hastert did exactly nothing of substance when informed of a possible problem over a year ago. It is pure conjecture to think that he, or any of the Republicans that knew about Foley, would have ever done anything had not the media brought this to light. The Chairman of the House Page Board admitted to keeping the information from the Board's only Democrat.

I repeat what I said elsewhere: Had this been Teddy Kennedy after a female page, and the Democrats done what little the Republicans have done, you, Scotty, and the rest of the Right would be screaming about it. Adjustable principles and moral values mean nothing. Wrong is wrong, regardless of who does it, yet the Right hid the information for at least a year. Had they acted when they first knew, the scandal would be old news by now, and they might be able to actually use their action as proof of something. They didn't, and their inaction is proof of something else, something very different.

Someone in another thread commented on the height of the fall from a high horse. I don't think spinning on the way down helps lessen the damage from the fall.

"For one thing this is the House of Representatives, not a school house. Dennis Hastert while he is the Speaker, he certainly is not the only person of authority and he certainly has a lot more duties than keeping an eye on the sexual activities of the members."

Use this on your rose bushes; that may be the only place it will help.

DG-You are feeding the rose bushes just fine, thank you.

Funny you should mention Sen. Teddy Kennedy. And yes you are correct. I would certainly be saying my piece. As for Scotty, he does a fine job speaking for himself, should he so choose.

As for Sen. Teddy Kennedy, I will give him this. He has shown he can get away with murder. I don't see where doing a female page would have much impact on his reputation or his chances of re-election.

DG, I shall point out that by bringing up Sen. Kennedy you actually make my point better than I ever could. And that is by showing the very corruptness & hypocracy of the Democrat Party.

LR, I know all too well how innocent of hypocrisy you and Scotty are, but surely you earn some sort of award in the "Beating Dead Horses" Department. Don't you think the statute of limitations, or the double geopardy principle should apply in Teddy's case? Foley is current, Ted is history - get over it!! We'll try to catch up.

Another example of Republicans forcing people out -
Report: Foley warned in 2000

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A Republican member of Congress confronted then-Rep. Mark Foley about his Internet communications with teenagers as early as 2000, according to a newspaper report.

The report in the Washington Post pushes back by at least five years the date when a member of Congress acknowledges learning of the Florida Republican's questionable behavior toward pages.

It came as the Republican leadership attempted to present a united front on the congressional page scandal that has rocked the GOP a month before midterm elections and put House Speaker Dennis Hastert on shaky ground.

Though Rep. Adam Putnam, R-Florida, insisted Sunday that "the dirty laundry in our conference is gone," that claim appeared to be premature.

The Washington Post reported Sunday night that Rep. Jim Kolbe, R-Arizona, confronted Foley about his Internet communications with teenagers as early as 2000.

The Post said that a former page showed Kolbe some Internet messages from Foley that had made the page uncomfortable. Kolbe's press secretary, Korenna Cline, told the Post that a Kolbe staff member advised the page last week to discuss the matter with the clerk of the House. - CNN
--------
LR, if you have information regarding Kennedy's actions concerning a crime that he has committed, please contact the proper authorities. I am sure you'll be able to recognize them. They are the ones who investigated the Chappaquiddick incident, in which an adult female died. Kennedy was charged with leaving the scene of an accident after causing injury, pleaded "Guilty" and received a suspended sentence of two months in jail. (Please note that the authorities in that case actually investigated rather than covered up until forced to investigate.) I'm sure that the police will welcome your help.

How the Kennedy story relates to Foley's attachment to 16 and 17 year-old pages, and the Republicans' covering up of that attention escapes me. The woman in Kennedy's car was about to have her 29th birthday. That would both make her an adult and almost twice the age of the pages in Foley's Follies.

In any case, does whatever happened in the past make hiding what Foley was doing acceptable?

I'll repeat some of what I said in a previous post, since I must assume that you missed it somehow.

Is anyone willing to go on record saying that, with the knowledge that the Republican leadership had (a known gay asking for pictures of male pages, asking them what they were wearing, and having a reputation so questionable that the pages themselves were warned about him for years), a "Knock it off" was the proper response? To those who have children that age, is that an acceptable response from the people you have entrusted your child to?* Is a congressman's reputation (or a party's) more important that the safety of the children working in Congress?