http://mediamatters.org/items/200610010003

Quote :

"Gingrich: House GOP would have "been accused of gay bashing" if it "overly aggressively reacted" to Foley's emails in 2005 Discussing the recent resignation of former Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) with host Chris Wallace on the October 1 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday, Fox News political analyst and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) claimed that House Republicans would have "been accused of gay bashing" if they had "overly aggressively reacted" to Foley's allegedly inappropriate email communications with a 16-year-old male congressional page when House Republicans reportedly first learned of Foley's actions in late 2005. As Media Matters for America has noted, the House Republican leadership -- including House Majority Leader John Boehner (OH), National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Tom Reynolds (NY), and a senior aide to House Speaker Dennis Hastert (IL) -- has reportedly known for months about Foley's emails. Wallace then asked: "How would it have been gay bashing?" Gingrich replied: "Because it was a male-male relationship," adding that "there was no proof" that Foley was a "predatory person." Gingrich suggested that House Republican leaders would have been responding "overly aggressively" if they took action against Foley after reading his alleged emails because "the actual notes were relatively innocuous, there was nothing sexual in those notes." As the weblog Talking Points Memo has noted, House leaders have acknowledged that Rep. Rodney Alexander (R-LA) had seen the emails; the blog also noted a report by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch that Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL) said he and the clerk of the House had also seen the emails, while a Shimkus spokesman said Shimkus hadn't seen the emails. Boehner, Reynolds, and Hastert acknowledge being aware of the emails, but not having seen them directly. In the emails, Foley allegedly asked the page to "send me an email pic of you," remarked that a different page was "in really great shape," and asked the page "what do you want for your birthday" and "how old are you now?" Further, if House leaders had investigated further, they might also have uncovered sexually explicit instant messages Foley reportedly sent to a House page in 2003. From the October 1 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace: WALLACE: Before we get to the Clinton interview, let's start, as we always do, with the latest news. It now turns out that, as we said, top Republican House leaders knew for months that Congressman Mark Foley sent inappropriate emails to at least one 16-year-old male page. Speaker Gingrich, did House Republican leaders do all they should have? GINGRICH: Well, I think if you look at what they actually knew, which was that the family did not want anyone involved and the actual notes were relatively innocuous, there was nothing sexual in those notes. They had him counseled. They had the head of the page program, Congressman Shimkus, talk to him very directly. And I think they thought that it was over. The newest incident only surfaced when ABC News interviewed Foley and he resigned within two hours, or I think the House leaders would have moved to expel him. WALLACE: But during all those months they left Foley in the House Republican leadership. They left him as the head of the congressional caucus dealing with exploited children. No second thoughts about that? GINGRICH: Well, you could have second thoughts about it, but I think had they overly aggressively reacted to the initial round, they would also have been accused of gay bashing. I mean, the original notes had no sexual innuendo and the parents did not want any action taken. WALLACE: How would it have been gay bashing? GINGRICH: Because it was a male-male relationship. And they had no -- there was no proof, there was nothing that I know of in that initial round that would have led you to say in a normal circumstance that this is a predatory person. "

HERE IS A MOTHERFUCKING HINT. PEDOPHILIA AND HOMOSEXUALITY ARE NOT THE SAME FUCKING THING. TOO KEEP IDENTIFYING PEDOPHILIA AS HOMOSEXUALITY IS INTELLECTUALLY AND MORALLY REPUGNANT.

10/2/2006 4:56:23 PM

It didn't say where these events occurred. The age of consent in D.C. is 16. In Florida it's 18.

So it's only Pedophilia if one of the parties was in Florida at the time.

10/2/2006 5:09:13 PM

Quote :

"Gingrich suggested that House Republican leaders would have been responding "overly aggressively" if they took action against Foley after reading his alleged emails because "the actual notes were relatively innocuous, there was nothing sexual in those notes.""

Well, that's a reasonable thing to say. It's the IMs that were sexually explicit.

10/2/2006 5:34:13 PM

Quote :

"http://mediamatters.org"

10/2/2006 5:37:22 PM

DONT WE HAVE A THREAD ABOUT THIS ALREADY!!!!?!?!?


why is nutsmacker obsessed with a pedophile??

10/2/2006 5:51:13 PM

^^you can watch the video too

^He was a congressman in charge of exploited children caucus. Why shouldn't I be irate?

10/2/2006 6:03:05 PM

your not irate...your obsessed....like...you have two stupid threads about it...when we already have a thread for ...i mean....

also...making stupid threads about him on TWW is a good way to effect change....ya know...since you are so important and all incumbants fear you......haha

[Edited on October 2, 2006 at 6:05 PM. Reason : asdf]

10/2/2006 6:04:21 PM

why was the downing st. memo fake, trikk?

10/2/2006 6:07:15 PM

Quote :

" also...making stupid threads about him on TWW is a good way to effect change....ya know...since you are so important and all incumbants fear you......haha"

Good job in changing the focus of this thread. And if you cannot see the incumbents being scared of the electorate then you are a mental midget.

10/2/2006 6:08:19 PM

if you think incumbants are afraid of you then you are mental midget

10/2/2006 6:23:57 PM

So you are telling me the republicans aren't scared at all about being elected out of office? Talk about rosy glasses.

10/2/2006 7:48:28 PM

nowhere NEAR as much as you think they are.....NOWHERE.....i think most repubs are as confident as I am that by the time the elections come around and the dems have done thier worst with the smear campains and its all said and done...the repubs will pick a few seats in both houses....now you wont see that in the media or on rawstory.com, but that is the sentiment amongst most republicans

10/2/2006 7:50:31 PM

What's your sentiment on how the Iraq War is going?

10/2/2006 7:57:06 PM

^^Is that why opinion approval polls of the Republicans are way low?

10/2/2006 8:51:54 PM

Quote :

"by the time the elections come around"

libs are pathetic.....they are giving it everything they got and the repubs have not even begun to fight....sooo pathetic

10/2/2006 11:49:25 PM

What do you mean "giving it everything they got?" They aren't giving anything at this point. It's just the media doing a bit of choice reporting right now.

10/3/2006 12:16:51 AM

More like pedophile bashers. Those liberals who hate pedophiles!

10/3/2006 1:00:42 AM

Quote :

"libs are pathetic.....they are giving it everything they got and the repubs have not even begun to fight....sooo pathetic"

hahahahah

the democrats haven't done anything. And based upon living in Raleigh, I can say that Vernon Robinson is campaigning more than Brad Miller.

10/3/2006 2:04:22 AM

^i noticed that guys commercials the other day...is it true the guy running against him let pedofile mexicanos into the us?

10/3/2006 2:23:26 AM

Even if the page were old enough, Foley still should've been repremanded for the advances themselves. That's just not acceptable conduct no matter what.

That and -- frankly -- this whole "blame the gay agenda!!!1" nonsense just isn't going to work this time. The worst thing the Republicans can do in this instance is to use shape-shifting "culture wars" arguments; they have zero credibility.

The only appropriate reaction to any failing in the ranks is: "heads will roll." There's seriously no other course. We're talking about kids here; their parents didn't send them to Washington to be molested by powerful men. And if the Republican party leadership can't ensure that won't happen -- even at their own political expense -- how can they lead the country on bigger matters?

[Edited on October 3, 2006 at 4:09 AM. Reason : foo]

10/3/2006 4:07:54 AM

here is the thing...make no mistake that libs are not upset about this kinda of behavior....they have defended it several times in the past....

this is 100% politically motivated. I mean...is it any coincidence that these recordings been held till right before the elections? ... i dont think so...this is all politics....and just like the abramof (sp?) "scandal"...this will blow over and by the time the elections roll around...it wont matter

10/3/2006 6:29:17 AM

The Democrats have defended pedophilia?

10/3/2006 6:52:48 AM

yeah

well.....pedophiles

[Edited on October 3, 2006 at 6:58 AM. Reason : asdf]

10/3/2006 6:53:54 AM

Honestly, it sounds to me like what Gingrich says makes a lot of sense. There was an incident they were aware of that was creepy, but not sexual (these notes) and the page program and the parents had already responded adequately to it. Had they then expelled him, it would have seemed vindictive.

If the non-sexual, but creepy notes were the only things they had known about, then I agree with their actions. Something tells me at least a few people on Capitol Hill knew more than that, but its going to be tough to prove. If it can be proven though, then my judgment will be more harsh for them.

10/3/2006 7:16:33 AM

yeah....Mel Reynolds i think was a dem from illinois....ill have to research this...

i also feel like the ethics committee at the time (led by democrates) put a stop to all investigations of dems having sex with pages...i think they called the pages testimony "unreliable" or something like that...i mean...can you imagine if republicans just said..."this boys testimony is unreliable....foley is fine...end of story"

haha...wow

10/3/2006 7:24:13 AM

so were foley's messages able to be intercepted since bush and friends passed the patriot act and took away your freedoms to private internet confidentiality?

10/3/2006 9:50:23 AM

They conveniently left out the provacative IMs, such as these.

"Do I make you a little horny?"

"You in your boxers, too? ... Well, strip down and get naked."

And probably a whole lot worse that hasn't come to light yet.

He didn't resign over asking a page what he wanted for his birthday, geez people.

[Edited on October 3, 2006 at 10:06 AM. Reason : ?]

10/3/2006 10:05:07 AM

You're so right, fucking retard.

We all know he had IMs that were inappropriate. The question is what people on Capitol Hill knew about. Gingrich is saying he knew about an incident that was inappropriate, but only about some notes that weren't sexual in nature.

There's a big difference between knowing that the guy told the boy he had nice legs in a note versus telling him to get naked and asking how he masterbates on IM.

What did people know, not what was done, is what this thread is about.

10/3/2006 10:10:07 AM

wait...

when have Democrats defended pedophiles?

Let me save you the trouble and get this out of the way:

OMG TEH ACLU DID SOMETHING THAT SEEMS TO ME LIKE DEFENDING PEDOPHILIA BECAUSE I LACK CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS!1

10/3/2006 11:04:41 AM

I never said they did. I also don't think the GOP is defending pedophiles. They're simply CYAing because some of them knew something was wrong and didn't oust him.
What did they know? We don't know yet. But that doesn't matter. You guys have an election to run and this is working.

Welcome to the game.

10/3/2006 11:13:44 AM

That was directed to trik, sorry

10/3/2006 11:15:30 AM

Oh, roger that.

10/3/2006 11:33:36 AM

Quote :

"this is 100% politically motivated. I mean...is it any coincidence that these recordings been held till right before the elections? ... i dont think so...this is all politics....and just like the abramof (sp?) "scandal"...this will blow over and by the time the elections roll around...it wont matter "

Haha, of course it's political. You think ANYTHING that happens in congress is going to slip by without a political spin?

It's not 100% political though, I don't see how you can sympathize with a pedophile (Republicans have always been a bit delusional...) in this case. Just because it is political doesn't mean that some people who happen to be prominent Republicans didn't screw up.

10/3/2006 12:48:40 PM

but if everyone is morally different and morality is completely relative than how can you call it repugnant?



DON'T PUSH YOUR MORALS ON ME

10/3/2006 12:55:36 PM

I don't speak for us all, but I certainly don't sympathize with the guy. He deserves what he gets. That doesn't mean I don't think its fishy that it was all under wraps until elections got closer.

It seems to me that the person who leaked all these stories (while well justified) may have known something a little sooner as well and just waited till it was convenient to let it out.

10/3/2006 12:56:14 PM

i don't understand why treetwista has such a problem with mediamatters.org

are you afraid of biased transcripts?!?

10/3/2006 12:58:05 PM

Quote :

"but if everyone is morally different and morality is completely relative than how can you call it repugnant? DON'T PUSH YOUR MORALS ON ME"

Don't try and pull this shit.

10/3/2006 12:58:36 PM

Quote :

"It seems to me that the person who leaked all these stories (while well justified) may have known something a little sooner as well and just waited till it was convenient to let it out."

sort of like how the terror threat level raises at very convenient times when threats are "discovered"

10/3/2006 1:03:19 PM

Quote :

"so were foley's messages able to be intercepted since bush and friends passed the patriot act and took away your freedoms to private internet confidentiality?"

No, I believe they were given to the page's mentor/representative (Rep Rodney Alexander (R)), who then turned them over to leaders like Shimkus (sp?) and Hastert.

10/3/2006 2:31:37 PM