Foley flounced

The E.coli in the Republican spinach is Mark Foley, and coming down with the disease more recently is Dennis Hastert who apologized in the standard way these days with, “I’m sorry for what happened” rather than “I’m sorry I shirked my oversight duties and put many pages of minor age at risk.”

Representative Foley withdrew as if he had touched a steaming kettle. It leads one to think that indeed a forensic investigation needs to be undertaken, computers need to be searched, interviews need to be made. The Democratic co-chairman of the House Ethics Committee said this inquiry would take weeks rather than months. Five will get you ten that no results will be out before November 9th.

While the Democrats are enjoying this immensely -- I too love a media circus, a la the White Bronco Chase—we may have already reached the point of diminishing returns. Hastert’s “the buck stops here” and the “dozens of subpoenas” issued have put things on the wind-down phase for front page news.

Personally, except for the proximity to the election, this is a two or three-day story. No laws were broken that I can figure. No sexual touching or seducing has been revealed. More importantly the age of consent in D.C. is 16 years old. It ain’t illegal to make provocative, even pornographic, written advances to a minor of consent age. Should it be legal might well be worth addressing, but that is another matter.

In Minnesota, Patty Wetterling knows how to make hay while the sun shines. Her ad was out in a few days after she said that any representative should be “asked to resign" if they were complicit in a coverup. Later she said, “should resign.” She has been an outspoken crusader for tough pedophilia laws for 17 years. My kids went to bed for over a decade saying, “and God make Jacob Wetterling come home.”

But I am not content to rush to judgment on the House leadership. We don’t know all the facts by a long shot. Maybe Hastert did not know more than his actions warranted. The issue will not change voters back home votes, in my opinion. It might make a few conservatives stay home on Election Day. That is all. If this plays out too long, it hurts the Democrats by keeping their home run issue off front and center, The War.

Jim, the reason there will be nothing coming from the ethics committee is because there is nothing to get. Foley made comments over the internet to an 18 year old page, a page who was goading him into saying things he wouldn't normally say to make fun of him with, and emails that were altered before being made public. It is simply absurd to claim that there is a cover up. It is even worse to champion Patty Wetterling for claiming to be a child's right advocate when she knew about all this before hand and if she was truely for saving children would have brought the charges out herself, rather than being a pawn of a party trying to find scanal simply because they are losing in the issues.

Well Said!

Ken, thank you for commenting on this post. You don't seem to be in control of the facts, however.

Foley was involved with 16 year olds. He may also have e-mailed older 18, 19 year olds, but on page 40 of the Oct. 16th, 2006 Time magazine and page 34 of Newsweek, it says Foley made sexual advances to 16 year olds.

You claim Patty Wetterling had prior knowledge of the Foley scandal and that "e-mails were altered before being made public." These are pretty significant charges. Can you support them with authoritative sources, that is, something more credible than talk radio?

Also let me correct my post. What Foley did was against the law. It is sexual harassment to make sexual advances to persons over whom one has supervisory power. Foley did that, and that is a crime. I have my youngest sister to thank for that correction.

Jim, you are so...The accuser to whom the instant messages, the sexually explicit messages were sent is now 21. Those messages were sent 3 years ago,. 21-3=18.

Please learn basic math.

The changes made to the e-mails come straight from the FBI press conference held on the matter. I suggest that you check the Washington Post for a brief statement:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/05/AR2006100501657.html

In your particular scenario it is not sexual harassment, Foley had no supervisory power over the pages. They simply assisted him as they did all the other House members. In fact, he had no power over them at all. He could not fire them, or order them what to do. They were totally at will to answer to him. Thus a case for sexual harassment cannot be made.

I suggest you study a little Jim, I find that all your responses in comments to be either lacking in facts or simply absurd defense of people who are trying to harm America.

I guess I don't understand, Ken. If Foley didn't do anything illegal why did he resign from Congress? Why is there an ethics committee investigation? Why is there an FBI fast track investigation underway?

Seems like a lot of hassle for some harmless e-mails sent to an 18 year old, no?

Let me guess - this is all a vast left-wing conspiracy? Nancy Pelosi is in cahoots with a gay Republican cabal and Howard Dean is really pulling all the strings inside the Bush Justice Department with help from Michael Moore, all of which is funded by George Soros?

Nobody is defending the guy anymore, the only question is who knew about it and when. We'll have to see how that shakes out, but I wouldn't hold my breath that the Democrats had anything to do with it.

Well first off Jim, he admitted to being a raging alcoholic. Second, Republicans told him he had to resign after all this came out. Republicans deal with their troublemakers by telling them they have to leave. Democrats lavish praise on their troublemakers and re-elect them (see Mel Reynolds, Barney Frank, and Gerry Studds).

I apologize to you Jim, my last comments were made tword cjb and I put your name in by mistake.