Johnny Coli Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 "Hastert and the rest". The implicit assumption that knowledge of Foley must be distributed along party lines is disgusting. Nothing more than the same lascivious attempt to play party politics with the issue that so many of us have been complaining about to begin with.Business as usual in the GOP... 794044[/snapback] Mean culpa, I probably should have just named them all in stead of using "Hastert and the rest"...The Hill: Hastert's staff first knew of Foley emails in 2005 House Speaker Dennis Hastert’s (R-Ill.) National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Tom Reynolds (R-N.Y.) Majority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) Rep. Rodney Alexander (R-La.) Alexander’s chief of staff, Royal Alexander Tim Kennedy, a staff assistant in the Speaker’s office Mike Stokke, Hastert’s deputy chief of staff Clerk of the House Jeff Trandahl Ted Van Der Meid, the Speaker’s chief counsel Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.) And from The Houston Chronicle GOP leaders admit their offices have known for months that a Florida Republican congressman was sending inappropriate e-mails to a boy who had worked as a page in the House of Representatives. My apologies to anyone in the GOP that I may have offended by lumping them in with J.Dennis Hastert. No way I'd want to be associated with him either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RayFinkle Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 Frankly, the story is too salacious to believe that if the Dems knew they would be able to stop their giddiness this long and wait to use it at the right time. I think it would have come out long ago if they did. The quote you used says the pages kept it to themselves. 794025[/snapback] Couldn't agree more. Sad to say but the Dems simply aren't smart enough to sit on something like this...or even dig it up for that matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 I have no idea whether the Dems knew about this before this past week. I do know that the Speaker looks pretty foolish for not doing anything about this earlier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 I have no idea whether the Dems knew about this before this past week. I do know that the Speaker looks pretty foolish for not doing anything about this earlier. 794151[/snapback] He told the authorities. Then he kept as quiet as a church mouse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 He told the authorities. Then he kept as quiet as a church mouse. 794255[/snapback] If he had been smart, he would have made sure that Foley resigned to save the Republican party from this mess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slothrop Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 It looks like Reynolds is in big trouble. First, he throws the Speaker under the bus. Now, it appears he in part orchestrated the cover-up. Oops. Link Reynolds is in bigger trouble than you thoughtOctober 3rd, 2006 by BuffaloPundit Whilst we wonder whether there was more that Reynolds could have done to get rid of Mark Foley and his not unknown creepiness, there is a more sinister aspect to this story that is just now emerging. Tom Reynolds’ Chief of Staff is named Kirk Fordham. According to AmericaBlog, Congressman Tom Reynolds’ (R-NY) chief of staff, Kirk Fordham, tried to broker a secret deal last Friday to get ABC News to cover up the worst part of the Foley child predator scandal, the lurid five-plus-page instant message chat in which Foley asked a child to measure his penis and then led the child into a detailed discussion of masturbatory techniques. Covering this sort of stuff up is pretty de rigeur, right? Wait. There’s more to this amazing TV offer. You see, Kirk Fordham used to be Mark Foley’s Chief of Staff. If what we’re hearing about Foley’s creepy rep is true, there’s no way Fordham didn’t have an intimate knowledge of said rep. Howie Kurtz alluded to this fact in yesterday’s Washington Post, and the Daily Politics’ Ben Smith gets Kurtz’s confirmation. Tom Reynolds and his aide didn’t want you to know the truth? As AmericaBlog aptly puts it: Congressman Reynolds, you’ll recall, is the head of the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), the congressional body in charge of helping House republicans get re-elected. Reynolds had been notified about Foley’s page-baiting months ago, yet wants us to believe he did everything he could and that he’s not responsible for the sexual predator getting an easy ride, for his being permitted to remain in congress, permitted to remain the chair of the House caucus on missing and exploited children, and being permitted to remain in the House Republican leadership… …Congressman Reynolds let his own chief of staff secretly work for a child predator in an effort to cover-up the worst evidence of the predator’s sexual wrongdoing. Without that evidence, this case might not have broken wide open. Add Reynolds to the list, alongside Hastert and Shimkus, of members of Congress who need to resign now. Next question for Mr. Reynolds: Did Reynolds know that his chief of staff was doing this? Did Reynolds approve it? And I would add, “Why didn’t you bring up this fact at yesterday’s kiddie presser?” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albany,n.y. Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 A gay conservative -what a surprise Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 A gay conservative -what a surprise 794447[/snapback] but...but...but....Republicans hate gays! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted October 4, 2006 Author Share Posted October 4, 2006 but...but...but....Republicans hate gays! 794484[/snapback] Republicans have repressed homosexual energy according to some crazy !@#$ on austin public television. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 Republicans have repressed homosexual energy according to some crazy !@#$ on austin public television. 794487[/snapback] Last I checked, that's the only type of person on Austin public TV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 A gay conservative -what a surprise 794447[/snapback] A gay Democrat is a problem. A gay conseravtive is not nearly as big of a problem because with a good talking to, a conservative can become ungay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted October 4, 2006 Author Share Posted October 4, 2006 Last I checked, that's the only type of person on Austin public TV. 794523[/snapback] Indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 A gay Democrat is a problem. A gay conseravtive is not nearly as big of a problem because with a good talking to, a conservative can become ungay. 794545[/snapback] How can you even tell the difference between a conservative gay and a conservative heterosexual? They're both uptight and repressed... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 How can you even tell the difference between a conservative gay and a conservative heterosexual? They're both uptight and repressed... 794605[/snapback] One wants to just turn the page, the other wants to turn the page over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoondckCL Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 God damn that is some perverted sh-- that they are conversating about. I wouldn't say i am shocked, because this kind of thing has happened before, just not with someone hitting on a little boy. This paints a dark picture of America, and it is not the kind of thing that makes us look good with forgein policy or any other field which we try to dominate. The questions that this begs is what other type of perverted sh-- is going on that both parties are sitting on? And what should we do about it? If it were up to me, i would say some kind of serious political reformation must be done. We have at least one fat cat who sits in a respectable position, by having the free world in his hands, but turns it down only to be replaced by a teenage boy, who knows what others are doing. People say that this makes conservatives look bad. It does. But i think it makes Democrats look equally as bad the same way it made conservatives look bad when Bill Clinton was involved with Monica Lewinski. There is a growing distrust in government from where i sit, and this type of news does not make either major political party look desirable. Just a bunch of people who we look to to guide this country, but instead of looking out for the people they are looking to fill desires that do not interest anyone but themselves. If a politician has never gotten involved with molestation or sexual activity while in office, they are all involved with scandals in one way or another. So before people go pointing fingers as to who looks worse, Democrats or Republicans, it is the American people who look like garbage, sinners, and infadels as a result of bull sh-- like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slothrop Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 confirmation of the role of Reynolds's chief of staff: Aide tries to cover-up story When will politicians learn that the cover-up is always worse than the actual scandal. If you believe that Reynolds had no knowledge of his aid's actions then I have a sinking house in Amherst to sell you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted October 4, 2006 Author Share Posted October 4, 2006 I added maf54 to my buddy list but he never came online Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 God damn that is some perverted sh-- that they are conversating about. I wouldn't say i am shocked, because this kind of thing has happened before, just not with someone hitting on a little boy. This paints a dark picture of America, and it is not the kind of thing that makes us look good with forgein policy or any other field which we try to dominate. The questions that this begs is what other type of perverted sh-- is going on that both parties are sitting on? And what should we do about it? If it were up to me, i would say some kind of serious political reformation must be done. We have at least one fat cat who sits in a respectable position, by having the free world in his hands, but turns it down only to be replaced by a teenage boy, who knows what others are doing. People say that this makes conservatives look bad. It does. But i think it makes Democrats look equally as bad the same way it made conservatives look bad when Bill Clinton was involved with Monica Lewinski. There is a growing distrust in government from where i sit, and this type of news does not make either major political party look desirable. Just a bunch of people who we look to to guide this country, but instead of looking out for the people they are looking to fill desires that do not interest anyone but themselves. If a politician has never gotten involved with molestation or sexual activity while in office, they are all involved with scandals in one way or another. So before people go pointing fingers as to who looks worse, Democrats or Republicans, it is the American people who look like garbage, sinners, and infadels as a result of bull sh-- like this. 794672[/snapback] "Little boy"? Sixteen year olds may be minors*, but they are NOT "little boys". *And in this case, the stupid-ass conflicting federal statues aren't even clear that 16 year olds ARE minors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 I heard the age of consent in DC is 16. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 The Big Man's Take on Foley (and others) going to rehab ( not at the beginning). Funny stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts