November 16, 2018, 05:22:36 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: NEW CHILD BOARD CREATED IN THE POLITICAL SECTION FOR THE 2016 ELECTION
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Florida Republican Mark Foley Resigns From U.S. House Seat  (Read 10344 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Carnut
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 3882


« Reply #20 on: October 04, 2006, 06:15:42 PM »

Quote from: "Dihannah1"
Quote from: "mrs. red"
Actually my advice is to vote every single last one of them OUT OF OFFICE and let's start fresh.....

the only representative I can stomach right now is one from Kansas... Car, you've got a great rep in Patricia Kilpatrick....

as for the rest, why the hell is Kennedy still in office?  Byrd? Lott? Bachus? Spector?  any of them???  

Tell me why I should keep voting for these same people....


I was thinking this exact same thing this moring while getting ready for work and listening to the news!!!  Get 'em all out and start fresh!  

I have little to no faith in the people of our government!  It's beyond Dems. and GOP.  I don't even have a clue who to vote for, I trust none of them!

The next sickest part of Foley soliciting sex from a minor, and while at work is he was over a committee working for Exploited children!  Talk about a hypocrasy!  

I know many Gay people and Adults of child molestation who do NOT molest children.   Is he attempting to make this an excuse??  Oh, it makes me so angry!  I don't give a freak about is sexual orientation, hit race, religions, etc....   There is NO excuse, PERIOD!


Now a days everything needs an excuse, no one is responsible for anything.
Logged
Carnut
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 3882


« Reply #21 on: October 05, 2006, 01:53:51 PM »

Heh, Heh, the way this Foley thing is going, it kinda looks like the Republicans are gonna eventually get blamed for allowing a Gay guy to get elected.
Logged
LouiseVargas
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 2524



« Reply #22 on: October 06, 2006, 10:50:50 PM »

I do not think Hastert should step down over this Foley scandal, and I'm a Democrat.
Logged

Hope is everything. I see angels everywhere.
Dihannah1
Monkey All Star Jr.
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5264


God watch over our children and keep them safe.


« Reply #23 on: October 07, 2006, 09:43:50 PM »

Quote from: "LouiseVargas"
I, too, have been following this story. I had to slap my face and look like this  Shocked  Shocked  Shocked  when I heard it on the news. Although men have pursued young boys all throughout history, Mark Foley must have lost his mind to do this on the job. What made him think this was acceptable behavior considering how closely the media pounces on any scandal they can find. He was known to be gay and a devoted Catholic and had met the Pope.

I also heard on FOX that this has been going on for a year and he had been warned by his fellow Representatives many times.

I think it was Nancy Pelosi who called for an investigation this morning wherein the other Representatives would, under oath, be required to tell what they knew and when, as well as details about how long it was going on, and why they let it continue ... and that they should be held responsible also.

As much as I hate Foley's behavior, one thing that is wrong with politics is the media's rabid prying into the private sexual lives of politicians. America was founded upon a Puritanical ethic. Sex is evil. War and killing are fine, but sex is not.

If you think Bill Clinton did something wrong, you don't have a clue as to what other Presidents did. Some had illegitimate children. George Washington had an affair with a slave and the descendent of that union recently came out and wrote a book. The Secret Service procured twins for JFK and the three of them swam naked in the White House pool when Jackie was out of town. They went up to his room and had three way sex while the CIA kept watch and kept their mouths shut. Bobby Kennedy was embroiled in affairs and you will hear more about this in my Marilyn Monroe investigation once it is completed. The CIA called Martin Luther King into their offices and threatened to publicly reveal his extramarital affairs if he didn't stop his protest marches for desegration and civil rights. I can't even imagine what LBJ and Bush 41 did. And Clinton was impeached?  

The current media scrutiny prevents many highly qualified people from going into politics. I don't know exactly when things changed to a free for all. Gary Hart was the first victim the media exposed in 1988 during his campaign for President. He was more than 20% ahead of the field when he was photographed with Donna Rice sitting on his lap on a yacht called Monkey Business. His campaign imploded. Dukakis got the nomination and was overwhelmingly defeated by Bush 41.  And why did we get Bush 41 - because Donna Rice sat on Hart's lap. Ridiculous. And now Bush 43. All because of a pic. The scales are out of balance.

Walter Mondale had an episode of depression a long time ago and the media seized upon this and said he was not qualified. Colin Powell was going to run for President but the press found out his wife has depression and takes meds and he decided not to run because he didn't want her raked over the coals.

With the focus on their personal lives, only the people with the most pristine backgrounds and empty closets escape scrutiny. Thus the pool of candidates dwindles down and we are left with brazen charlatans with no ethics who run for office. Mark Foley for example and yes, I know he is a predator. I'm sure many of them have served and escaped scrutiny.
 
I "suspicion" we have sabotaged ourselves from within. But we can't turn the clock back to make journalists behave in the civilized way they used to. It's too late.

What can we do?


LV, you usually speak exactly my thoughts.  However, in most of your examples, you are speaking of grown, consensual adults.  In this case, it is young innocent boys who are their to learn, entrusted by their parents of their safety.   I see this as totally different and should be brought out to the public.  How long would it have continued if not?
Logged

God has FINAL Judgement!<br />
Dihannah1
Monkey All Star Jr.
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5264


God watch over our children and keep them safe.


« Reply #24 on: October 07, 2006, 09:47:48 PM »

On another note,  I could care less about the sex lives of those in office, when not affecting minors.  As long as they are doing their jobs....  Clinton and Lewinski?  A total waste of political time!  That was between him and Hillary..  Just add him to about 80% of the rest of the male population!
Logged

God has FINAL Judgement!<br />
Carnut
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 3882


« Reply #25 on: October 07, 2006, 10:00:53 PM »

Dihannah1

You don't think it cheapens the diginity of the Oval Office to be having sex on company time?
Logged
LouiseVargas
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 2524



« Reply #26 on: October 07, 2006, 10:06:15 PM »

Dihannah, at first I didn't realize the Pages were so young - under 18, as opposed to Monica who was 22. I do agree with you that it was correct to make this public. The parents wanted to protect their sons but it is necessary that these young men come forward.
Logged

Hope is everything. I see angels everywhere.
Dihannah1
Monkey All Star Jr.
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5264


God watch over our children and keep them safe.


« Reply #27 on: October 08, 2006, 11:55:41 AM »

Quote from: "Carnut"
Dihannah1

You don't think it cheapens the diginity of the Oval Office to be having sex on company time?


Yes, it does.  Trust me, I do NOT condone it.  I wanted more to make a point how much more disgusting it is to me, molesting kids than two consensual adults.  But as LV stated, there is probably alot more that has happened in the White House than we'll ever know.  In the case of Clinton and Lewinski?  We learned more than I cared to know.  I would rather have not found out ,  like so many other things that's happened in the WH, I'm sure.  It didn't serve the country any good to know, it disrupted the government, who just lost focus,  and pretty much shut down. I believe (as long as it's not illegal), like my mother used to say "what you don't know, won't hurt you".  Rolling Eyes  However, Hillary should have slowly sawed "IT" off and left his a$$!  and poor Chelsea, the embarrasment!
Logged

God has FINAL Judgement!<br />
Carnut
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 3882


« Reply #28 on: October 08, 2006, 02:03:46 PM »

Well, every company I worked for knowledge of that kind of activity on company premises or company time would have gotten you fired.

Kind of a shame the government dosen't have the same standards of conduct for the senior officer.
Logged
mrs. red
Monkey All Star Jr.
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9318



WWW
« Reply #29 on: October 08, 2006, 06:57:35 PM »

DiHannah,
I disagree about poor Chelsa and Hillary... I think they both have known all along what Clinton did.... and does...

doesn't matter to either of them  - it's the price they choose to pay to do things like attend fashion week in Milan, Paris and NY.. (Chelsa)and it's how Hillary launched her own career.... JMO

Foley needed to go and LV is right Hasert should stay.....
Logged

To accomplish great things we must not only act but also dream, not only plan but also believe.
Author: Anatole
LouiseVargas
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 2524



« Reply #30 on: October 08, 2006, 10:26:54 PM »

Car, I worked for a software code writing company in 1998 and the married female President of the company went to Australia with the married male VP on business. I had to call the VP regarding a business matter and the hotel told me he had not checked in. I booked the same flight for both of them and separate rooms for each of them and the company paid for two rooms. I told the CEO that I couldn't reach the VP unless I called him at the President's room. Guess who got fired? Me! The CEO insisted upon giving me $5,000 to resign. I was outraged at first but thought it over and took the money.

Mrs. Red and Dihannah, sometimes people make a deal to get what they want and perhaps later regret it, but the deal was sealed long ago and it cannot be reversed.

Regarding Bill and Monica, I just cannot take it seriously. They were both victims of the media. When I think of what JFK did in the White House under the protection of the CIA, Bill's antics pale in comparison. Different times.
Logged

Hope is everything. I see angels everywhere.
Carnut
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 3882


« Reply #31 on: October 08, 2006, 10:42:09 PM »

Obviously we worked for different kinds of companies.

I do imagine that smaller companies run by the founder or one biggie in charge, that said biggies can 'do as I say and not as I do' but in the larger corporations I've worked for, that kind of activity is frowned upon if found out.
Logged
Dihannah1
Monkey All Star Jr.
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5264


God watch over our children and keep them safe.


« Reply #32 on: October 09, 2006, 10:24:04 AM »

Quote from: "mrs. red"
DiHannah,
I disagree about poor Chelsa and Hillary... I think they both have known all along what Clinton did.... and does...

doesn't matter to either of them  - it's the price they choose to pay to do things like attend fashion week in Milan, Paris and NY.. (Chelsa)and it's how Hillary launched her own career.... JMO

Foley needed to go and LV is right Hasert should stay.....


Mrs. Red,  After thinking about it, I am sure you are right about Hillary, but Chelsea was young and not in a position to do anything about it.  Yes, she was born into luxury and as most would, takes advantage of it.  Not her fault who her family is....  I'm sure she's also suffered or sacrificed what most children never had to along with the advantages.  Secret service up your butt 24/7 and in the constant public eye.   But that's niether here nor thier.  Again, I am not condoning Clintons actions, I just believe he is just ONE who got 'caught'.  LV makes a good point about Kennedy and others.
I am becoming so cynical, I don't even know who to trust in the government anymore.    Like you said Mrs. Red, we need to clean house across the board and start from scratch.  Bring back some accountability on both sides.

I also agree, Hastart should not resign....  at least unless something else comes out to show otherwise.
Logged

God has FINAL Judgement!<br />
Anna
Monkey Mega Star
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 18150



« Reply #33 on: October 11, 2006, 02:12:58 AM »

.
I find Anita Broadrick's encounter with Clinton far more upsetting than Monica but be that as it may, it is very very odd that only Republicans are called upon to resign.

Why did Gerry Studds go on to serve six more terms after having sex with a 16 year old and I think she was also a page, took her out of the country.  At least Foley says and seems to be backed up that he did not actually do anything like this while the target was a minor. I mean he did not actually have sex with the page like Studds did, just the emails while the page was a minor.  Studds did and was given plaudits later in his career from his party, the Democrats.  He didn't resign at all.  They never do.

Certainly Hastert should not resign, this is just ridiculous politics in action.  Just as Newt Gingrich had his career ended, now seems the entire GOP should resign en mass when Democrats NEVER do, they just go to rehab and keep their jobs like nothing ever happened.  Not just Barney Franks and Gerry Stubbs but recently Patrick Kennedy, William Jefferson, remember that Reynolds one Clinton pardoned?  Ted Kennedy with his drowning and Robert Byrd with his KKK.  All still in office so why should Republicans resign?  To try to upset the elected balance in the House of Representatives?  This is what this is about and I doubt the concern for the pages expressed by some who have smarmy pasts of their own.

I am sick of the one-sided demands for resignations.  If one side should resign, so should the other but I just never see that happening.  Only members of the GOP ever resign over these media scandals.  

Well, I guess if that's the only way they can get into office. . . . but I am for no more GOP resignations until the Democrats resign over their scandals as well for they are far from clean in this regard and we all know it.
They have pulled this "He must resign" trick just too many times.  If they don't do it themselves, they have no right to demand that others do so.


.
Logged

PERSONA NON GRATA

All posts reflect my opinion only and are not shared by all forum members nor intended as statement of facts.  I am doing the best I can with the information available.

Murder & Crime on Aruba Summary http://tinyurl.com/2nus7c
Anna
Monkey Mega Star
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 18150



« Reply #34 on: October 11, 2006, 10:01:55 PM »

OMG! Senator Harry Reid needs to resign right away, pronto, until a full investigation can be made into his top secret federal land deals which he failed to report as required!  He is no rookie and knows the rules inside and out, most especially when they can be applied to any Republican.

He better just step right down now until we can get to the bottom of this!  Ditto Patrick Kennedy until we know the extent to which he has been under the influence of drugs while casting votes that control the laws of this land.  These are both very serious charges and situations and these congressmen need to resign immediately pending full investigation.

 Reid Got $1M in Land Sale
 
Oct 11, 7:50 PM (ET)

By JOHN SOLOMON and KATHLEEN HENNESSEY
 
(AP) Senate Minority leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. speaks at a news conference in Omaha, Neb. in this...
WASHINGTON (AP) - Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid collected a $1.1 million windfall on a Las Vegas land sale even though he hadn't personally owned the property for three years, property deeds show.

In the process, Reid did not disclose to Congress an earlier sale in which he transferred his land to a company created by a friend and took a financial stake in that company, according to records and interviews.

The Nevada Democrat's deal was engineered by Jay Brown, a longtime friend and former casino lawyer whose name surfaced in a major political bribery trial this summer and in other prior organized crime investigations. He's never been charged with wrongdoing - except for a 1981 federal securities complaint that was settled out of court.

Land deeds obtained by The Associated Press during a review of Reid's business dealings show:

 
(AP) This image of a deed provided by the Clark County (Nev.) Recorder, shows a June 13, 2001, deed with...
_The deal began in 1998 when Reid bought undeveloped residential property on Las Vegas' booming outskirts for about $400,000. Reid bought one lot outright, and a second parcel jointly with Brown. One of the sellers was a developer who was benefiting from a government land swap that Reid supported. The seller never talked to Reid.

_In 2001, Reid sold the land for the same price to a limited liability corporation created by Brown. The senator didn't disclose the sale on his annual public ethics report or tell Congress he had any stake in Brown's company. He continued to report to Congress that he personally owned the land.

_After getting local officials to rezone the property for a shopping center, Brown's company sold the land in 2004 to other developers and Reid took $1.1 million of the proceeds, nearly tripling the senator's investment. Reid reported it to Congress as a personal land sale.

The complex dealings allowed Reid to transfer ownership, legal liability and some tax consequences to Brown's company without public knowledge, but still collect a seven-figure payoff nearly three years later.

Reid hung up the phone when questioned about the deal during an AP interview last week.
 
But in a news conference Wednesday in Las Vegas, the senator said he believed he did nothing wrong but was willing to change his ethics report's account of the sale if the Senate Ethics Committee ordered him to do so.

"Everything I did was transparent," Reid said. "I paid all the taxes. Everything is fully disclosed to the ethics committee and everyone else. As I said, if there is some technical change that the ethics committee wants, I'll be happy to do that."

The senator's aides said no money changed hands in 2001 and that Reid instead got an ownership stake in Brown's company equal to the value of his land. Reid continued to pay taxes on the land and didn't disclose the deal because he considered it a "technical transfer," they said.

They also said they have no documents proving Reid's stake in the company because it was an informal understanding between friends.

The 1998 purchase "was a normal business transaction at market prices," Reid spokesman Jim Manley said. "There were several legal steps associated with the investment during those years that did not alter Senator Reid's actual ownership interest in the land."

 
Senate ethics rules require lawmakers to disclose on their annual ethics report all transactions involving investment properties - regardless of profit or loss - and to report any ownership stake in companies.

Kent Cooper, a former Federal Election Commission official who oversaw government disclosure reports for federal candidates for two decades, said Reid's failure to report the 2001 sale and his ties to Brown's company violated Senate rules.

"This is very, very clear," Cooper said. "Whether you make a profit or a loss you've got to put that transaction down so the public, voters, can see exactly what kind of money is moving to or from a member of Congress."

"It is especially disconcerting when you have a member of the leadership, of either party, not putting in the effort to make sure this is a complete and accurate report," said Cooper. "That says something to other members. It says something to the Ethics Committee."

Other parts of the deal - such as the informal handling of property taxes - raise questions about possible gifts or income reportable to Congress and the IRS, ethics experts said.

 
Stanley Brand, former Democratic chief counsel of the House, said Reid should have disclosed the 2001 sale and that his omission fits a larger culture in Congress where lawmakers aren't following or enforcing their own rules.

"It's like everything else we've seen in last two years. If it is not enforced, people think it's not enforced and they get lax and sloppy," Brand said.

SALE HIDDEN FROM CONGRESS

Reid and his wife, Landra, personally signed the deeds selling their full interest in the property to Brown's company, Patrick Lane LLC, for the same $400,000 they paid in 1998, records show.

Despite the sale, Reid continued to report on his public ethics reports that he personally owned the land until it was sold again in 2004. His disclosure forms to Congress do not mention an interest in Patrick Lane or the company's role in the 2004 sale.
 
AP first learned of the transaction from a former Reid aide who expressed concern the deal hadn't been properly reported.

Reid isn't listed anywhere on Patrick Lane's corporate filings with Nevada, even though the land he sold accounted for three-quarters of the company's assets. Brown is listed as the company's manager. Reid's office said Nevada law didn't require Reid to be mentioned in the filings.

"We have been friends for over 35 years. We didn't need a written agreement between us," Brown said.

The informalities didn't stop there.

PROPERTY TAXES LOOSELY HANDLED

Brown sometimes paid a share of the local property taxes on the lot Reid owned outright between 1998 and 2001, while Reid sometimes paid more than his share of taxes on the second parcel they co-owned.

And the two men continued to pay the property taxes from their personal checking accounts even after the land was sold to Patrick Lane in 2001, records show.

Brown said Reid first approached him in 1997 about land purchases and the two men considered the two lots a single investment.

"During the years of ownership, there may have been occasions that he advanced the property taxes, or that I advanced the property taxes," Brown said. "The bottom line is that between ourselves we always settled up and each of us paid our respective percentages."

Ultimately, Reid paid about 74 percent of the property taxes, slightly less than his actual 75.1 ownership stake, according to canceled checks kept at the local assessor's office. One year, the property tax payments were delinquent and resulted in a small penalty, the records show.

Ethics experts said such informality raises questions about whether any of Brown's tax payments amounted to a benefit for Reid. "It might be a gift," Cooper said.

Brand said the IRS might view the handling of the land taxes as undisclosed income to Reid but it was unlikely to prompt an investigation. "If someone is paying a liability you owe, there may be some income imputed. But at that level, it's pretty small dollars," he said.

FEDERAL LAND SWAPS

Nevada land deeds show Reid and his wife first bought the property in January 1998 in a proposed subdivision created partly with federal lands transferred by the Interior Department to private developers.

Reid's two lots were never owned by the government, but the piece of land joining Reid's property to the street corner - a key to the shopping center deal - came from the government in 1994.

One of the sellers was Fred Lessman, a vice president of land acquisition at Perma-Bilt Homes.

Around the time of the 1998 sale, Lessman and his company were completing a complicated federal land transfer that also involved an Arizona-based developer named Del Webb Corp.

In the deal, Del Webb and Perma-Bilt purchased environmentally sensitive lands in the Lake Tahoe area, transferred them to the government and then got in exchange several pieces of valuable Las Vegas land.

Lessman was personally involved, writing a March 1997 letter to Interior lobbying for the deal. "This exchange has been through many trials and tribulations ... we do not need to create any more stumbling blocks," Lessman wrote.

For years, Reid also had been encouraging Interior to make land swaps on behalf of Del Webb, where one of his former aides worked.

In 1994, Reid wrote a letter with other Nevada lawmakers on behalf of Del Webb, and then met personally with a top federal land official in Nevada. That official claimed in media reports he felt pressured by the senator. Reid denied any pressure.

The next year, Reid collected $18,000 in political donations from Del Webb's political action committee and employees. Del Webb's efforts to get federal land dragged on.

In December 1996, Reid wrote a second letter on behalf of Del Webb, urging Interior to answer the company's concerns. The deal came together in summer and fall 1997, with Perma-Bilt joining in.

In January 1998 - just days before he bought his land - Reid applauded the Lake Tahoe land transfers, saying they would create the "gateway to paradise."

None of Reid's letters mentioned Perma-Bilt. Reid's office said the senator never met Lessman nor discussed the Lake Tahoe land transfer or his personal land purchase. A real estate attorney handled the 1998 sale at arms-length, aides said.

"This land investment was completely unrelated to federal land swaps that took place in the mid-1990's," Manley said.

Lessman said he never talked to Reid or asked for his help before the 1998 land sale, and only met the senator years later at a public event. "Any suggestion that the land sale between Senator Reid and myself is somehow tied in with the Perma-Bilt exchange is completely absurd," Lessman said.

THE REZONING

Clark County intended for the property Reid owned to be used solely for new housing, records show. Just days before Reid sold the parcels to Brown's company, Brown sought permission in May 2001 to rezone the properties so a shopping center could be built.

Career zoning officials objected, saying the request was "inconsistent" with Clark County's master development plan. The town board in Spring Valley, where Reid's property was located, also voted 4-1 to reject the rezoning.

Brown persisted. The Clark County zoning board followed by the Clark County Commission voted to overrule the recommendation and approve commercial zoning. Such votes were common at the time.

Before the approval in September 2001, Brown's consultant told commissioners that Reid was involved. "Mr. Brown's partner is Harry Reid, so I think we have people in this community who you can trust to go forward and put a quality project before you," the consultant testified.

With the rezoning granted, Patrick Lane pursued the shopping center deal. On Jan. 20, 2004, the company sold the property to developers for $1.6 million. Today, a multimillion dollar retail complex sits on the land.

On Jan. 21, 2004, Reid received more than $1.1 million of the sale proceeds. Reid disclosed the money the following year on his Senate ethics report as a personal sale of land, not mentioning Patrick Lane.

A BUSINESS PARTNER'S PAST

Brown has been a behind-the-scenes power broker in Nevada for years, donating to Democrats, Republicans and charities. He represented a major casino in legal cases and dabbled in Nevada's booming real estate market.

Brown befriended Reid four decades ago, even before Reid served as chairman of the Nevada gaming commission and decided cases involving Brown's clients.

Brown's name has surfaced in federal investigations involving organized crime, casinos and political bribery since the 1980s.

This past summer, federal prosecutors introduced testimony at the bribery trial of former Clark County Commission chairman Dario Herrera that Brown had taken money from a Las Vegas strip club owner to influence the commission. Herrera was convicted of taking kickbacks. Brown was never called as a witness.

Brown declined to discuss past cases where his name surfaced, including Herrara. "The federal government investigated this whole matter thoroughly, and there was never any implication of impropriety on my part," he said.
Logged

PERSONA NON GRATA

All posts reflect my opinion only and are not shared by all forum members nor intended as statement of facts.  I am doing the best I can with the information available.

Murder & Crime on Aruba Summary http://tinyurl.com/2nus7c
Anna
Monkey Mega Star
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 18150



« Reply #35 on: October 12, 2006, 02:30:08 PM »

Well, thank goodness somebody finally put this into perspective just a bit.  Rep. Chris Shays has finally said the "C" word after his political opponent in the upcoming election had the nerve to suggest he should return all monies raised not by Foley but by Dennis Hastert on behalf of Shays.

That is all this scandal is about, not the pages and not safety for children from predators but how this bad behavior of the part of Foley can be used to garner votes in the upcoming election.  I dare say if the election were not approaching, we wouldn't be hearing anything about this just as we did not for the last year until this critical time.

So pressed by this shrill, hysterical call for not just Foley but at least Hastert to resign, Shays finally says it--no one died as they did at Chappaquiddick.  And where is the party involved in the death of this young campaign worker, about the age of the page in question here?  Did he resign?  Did anybody?  No, because he was a Democrat.

I would love for somebody, myself if possible, to ask Ted Kennedy who is still in office until this day if the reason he is such a proponent of abortion is because he thinks this girl would still be alive today had abortions been legal when he left her to drown.

So before calling for others to resign, I want the good old DNC to remove a few of their own who have far greater scandals in their background and yet are revered and allowed to continue in office even now as they attempt to crucify Foley in the media taking any and all with him.  They have no right to demand resignation from others while among their very ranks are those who have done far worse and yet they did not demand resignation of their own.  


Article:



Shays: Page Scandal Isn't Chappaquiddick
 
 


Oct 11, 11:30 AM (ET)

By ANDREW MIGA


HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) - Republican Rep. Christopher Shays defended the House speaker's handling of a congressional page scandal, saying no one died like at Chappaquiddick in 1969 when Democratic Sen. Ted Kennedy was involved.

"I know the speaker didn't go over a bridge and leave a young person in the water, and then have a press conference the next day," the embattled Connecticut congressman told The Hartford Courant in remarks published Wednesday.

"Dennis Hastert didn't kill anybody," he added.

Shays' comments recalled the Chappaquiddick incident, when Kennedy's car ran off a Massachusetts bridge, killing his passenger, Mary Jo Kopechne. Kennedy did not immediately report the tragedy, and later pleaded guilty to leaving the scene of an accident.

Last week, Kennedy campaigned for Democrat Diane Farrell, who is locked in a bitter fight with Shays that could help determine whether Democrats recapture the House after 12 years of GOP control.

"This is symptomatic of Chris losing his composure in a tight race," Farrell said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press Wednesday. "Chris just seems to be lashing out in anger."

Farrell said the scandal, which polls show could hurt the GOP's bid to hang onto control, has affected her because her 19-year-old daughter Margaret was a Senate page when she was 16.

"My first reaction to this whole scandal had nothing to do with politics," she said. "It was as a parent who had a child participating in the program."

Shays cited Chappaquiddick in an interview Friday when he was asked about Farrell's call for him to return money raised by Hastert. The speaker has been under fire for his handling of disgraced former Rep. Mark Foley's sexually explicit messages to young pages.

Farrell has called for Shays to return any money raised for him by Hastert. She and other Democrats have called for Hastert to resign.


http://apnews.myway.com/article/20061011/D8KMGS500.html
Logged

PERSONA NON GRATA

All posts reflect my opinion only and are not shared by all forum members nor intended as statement of facts.  I am doing the best I can with the information available.

Murder & Crime on Aruba Summary http://tinyurl.com/2nus7c
pdh3
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 3020



« Reply #36 on: October 12, 2006, 03:57:57 PM »

Neither party can claim to have better character than the other. There are many, many hypocrites on both sides. Shady dealings abound in Washington. Power and money corrupt Republicans and Democrats alike. Just imagine, if all the money spent trying to get Clinton out of office had been spent on fixing the levees in New Orleans, how many lives and homes might have been saved, and our National image would have been spared. I see this scandal heating up as another big money waster. However, I'd like to point out, that Foley is a pedophile, so this does make it a serious matter. We can't say his behavior is not as reprehensible as any other child predator just because of his political affiliation.
Ted Kennedy would not be allowed to walk away from Chappaquiddick today. But as fate would have it, his family continues to pay for all their dirty dealings in the past, and Ted can never get past Mary Jo Kopechne.
I believe Newt Gingrich was also guilty of adultery, and Rush Limbaugh is a bigot and a drug addict who has also been treated with kid gloves in the legal system. He is another staunch Republican supporter with a load of unwashed laundry in his closet.
There are plenty of examples on both sides of the political arenaof ugliness and criminal behavior. It is a shame how the American people have been let down by our leaders, in so many ways. The shame belongs to everyone in politics but Foley is the man of the moment.
Logged

What's done in the dark will always come to light.
Pages: « 1 2   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Use of this web site in any manner signifies unconditional acceptance, without exception, of our terms of use.
Powered by SMF 1.1.13 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines LLC
 
Page created in 5.647 seconds with 19 queries.