Seems that the DEMOCRATIC leadership also knew of Representative Foley’s e-mails to the Pages at the same time the GOP leadership was advised but held this information until the “Timing was Right” for use…
ABC News reports: “The House Ethics Committee Report includes new information that top Democrats were also aware in 2005 of Mark Foley's inappropriate e-mails to congressional pages at about the same time as outgoing Speaker Dennis Hastert's office was informed.”
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/12/abc_exclusive_n.html
Now “Speaker to be” Nancy Pelosi was quick to condemn Dennis Hastert for not addressing the Foley e-mails but is it not interesting that the Democratic leadership had the same info but chose to sit on it until the most “beneficial” time for it’s release? And the MainScream media was more then happy to promote her outrage but yet ignored the history of Democratic Party member Gerry Studd’s who did much worse damage to Pages in the past… I still wonder if my local newspaper the Staunton NewsLeader will even mention the above info released by ABC News?
At least somebody in the House Democratic Caucus thought this information was important enough to release, it’s just the “Timing” of its release that is in question…
“But while the report is highly critical of the shortcomings of Hastert and the Republican leadership, there is no follow-up to the brief one sentence mention on page 76 that powerful Democratic committees also knew about the e-mails except to note that Matt Miller, the House Democratic Caucus staff member, sent the e-mails at some point to various news organizations.”
7 comments:
I guess the point you want us to believe is that we should elect more Republicans and less Democrats because being a sexual pervert, and covering for one within one's party, is not as bad as timing the release of such information. Nice logic.
It also can be deciphered from your post here that it was timing that kept the Republican leadership from getting rid of Foley when they were repeatedly warned about him.
Zen,
When did I ever say that? Seems to me I have been pretty much upfront saying that it is my intentions to point out how the media has and continues to only present their “View” of the stories. Just like when I question the NewsLeaders choice of “News” and its coverage when it comes to Republican events in the area.
How about it when the “Party” or voters of the Republican party chose not to re-elect Congressmen who have history with the Pages but yet the Democratic “Party” voters send guys like Gerry Studds back to office numerous times? And where was the Mainscream media reporting this back before the election? Yes the Republican leadership knew about Foley’s actions but so did the Democratic leadership who chose to sit on that information until it’s use would be most beneficial. Remember the “Outrage” by Pelosi and the likes when they found out about the mistreatment of the Pages but yet they sat on the info. Yeah, they cared about the well being of the pages. My ass…
You are putting the "timing" responsibilty wholey on the Dems. I am suggesting that the Republicans avoided releasing this information because of timing and because of pressure to keep him in office because of the money he had been able to raise. When would have been the proper timing for Hastert and other Republican leadership to police themselves? How long did they sit on this information without releasing it at all? When did the election get too close for the Republicans to decide to keep Foley's actions under wraps for the benefit of the Republican party? How is this caring about the well being of pages?
Do not read what I've written as a pass for the Dems. But for a party (Republicans) that trumpet "personal responsibility" when expecting it from others, you sure are giving them a huge pass only to point a finger at someone else's fault.
Just look at the way you constantly tie Stutts to this scandal at every chance. Whom by the way I also am not defending, and think should've been kicked out, and cannot fathom why the voters kept electing him. But your constant referencing of him clearly shows that whenever the Dems learned about it, had they brought it to light then, you'd still play it as political for all it was worth. You cannot—ethically anyway—chastize the actions of others, and then hold your side to a different standard. That's called hypocrisy.
It still comes down to the Republican's resposibility to take action when they learned about it. They didn't. If anything the Dems delay gave Hastart more time to handle it with discretion, but he didn't. Why? It's as you said....Timing.
And just to add a bit of fact to the discussion. I did not know the whole story, but thought I'd seek out some info, as you've proven to be quite unreliable in the past. You make the accusation that what Studds did amounts to "much worse damage to pages" and that the media ignored it.
On July 20, 1983, Studds was censured for having an affair 10 years earlier with a male page. He turned his back as the charges against him were read. The anti-gay crew had worked hard to demonize him. Gerry held a press conference with the page and admitted to a relationship. They each firmly stated that what had gone on in their bedroom was their business, and absolutely no one else's.
Where was Foley's press conference with the page saying it was thier private business? Studds did not come out and blame a drinking problem.
How am I giving the Republicans a “huge pass” by calling attention to someone else faults?
I have numerous times said that Foley should be gone and bring on more Republicans and I will call for their removal. I am sure Pelosi and friends are saving up names for the next “October” surprise before the next election. I am amazed that the media gave the Democratic party a “Huge Pass” when they kept the Foley issue going for weeks without mentioning the Studd’s history of worse offenses. Let alone did the MSM bring up the actions by Studd’s during his censure or how the Democratic party treated him after the incidents. I believe the MSM did talk about it on the fringe due to the blogs and other forms of media which were talking about it. See, the blogs are good for something…
Hastert and his timing? We both know that both party’s play this game during election time but I also feel that the Foley offense was not as bad as it was reported at first. The media ran with it and it snowballed. Should we clean house right away as soon as the MSM decides how they report it? Why is Jefferson still around after $90,000 marked cash found in the freezer? And he is ANOTHER Democrat who is re-elected by his people even with the pretty clear facts about him just like Studds was re-elected. Does that say anything about the voters of the Democratic party? Jefferson is not yet convicted but it looks pretty bad for his future, well maybe not, he is a Democrat you know…
“I did not know the whole story, but thought I'd seek out some info, as you've proven to be quite unreliable in the past” Thanks for the jab but as I said in the past I do not work for you and I do make the choice as to what gets on the blog. I believe Studd’s Page was a minor at the time of the incidents but that is from memory and could be wrong. If the page was an adult it is still sick and Studds should have been removed even as a Republican, Democrat, Independent, Green Party, etc…
What do you mean when you say, "If the page was an adult it is still sick and Studds should have been removed"?
Are you saying that homosexuals are sick and should be hidden from society?
You also said, "Should we clean house right away as soon as the MSM decides how they report it?"
It appears that Foley ran at the very moment the story surfaced, ready with the "drinking problem" excuse as well.
As for Jefferson, I honestly don't know why on earth he continues to be elected. It may say more about the Republicans though. That voters choose an alleged (not charged) criminal, over a Republican. Repubs are pretty well known these days as crooks. (yes another jab :) )
I haven't heard the latest on Jefferson's run-off election...did he get picked yet again? If so...ugh.
It is what it is...
"It all depends on what your definition of "Is" is...
"Should we clean house right away as soon as the MSM decides how they report it?" Look at Jefferson. The man has $90,000 of marked cash in his freezer. Where is the MSM clawing at his removal?
"That voters choose an alleged (not charged) criminal, over a Republican." Look at the voters that are putting him back into power. Tells you alot about the "Party" voter...
Post a Comment