Bachmann: You know, actually I think the American people are really tired of indecency, and they’re crying out for traditional values. I’ve been a very strong advocate for traditional values here in the state of Minnesota, and what we’ve found after Patty Wetterling started running her ad, overnight our online contributions to Michele Bachmann for Congress website increased tenfold. We had over 2600 hits, people were angry that Patty Wetterling is running a false ad, and that she has no source for her information.

No. It’s exactly what I’m saying. No action was taken other than telling Foley to cut it out. None by the FBI, 2 newpapers nor the leadership. No action. An investigation would be an action. There was NOTHING Dana in the email that was actionable. This is why I asked you Dana which phrase in which email do you think was cause for action. On which phrase would you have launched an investigation? This is about your judgement Dana because you have turned Monday Morning quarterbacking (along with others in the media) into a method in which to attack somebody unfairly.

Dana wrote irrelevant statements as to the assertion of a cover up, “Mr Foley was a closeted homosexual,¹ not in any sort of permanent relationship. He was on a committee specifically for the protection of abused and exploited children.”

Which one of those statements is cause for an investigation as to a crime being committed?

Dana then wrote without the same clarity that I’m trying to get to here, “And then the House leadership was informed, as early as 2001, that he was writing e-mails that at least one page found to be strange and uncomfortable,”

Dana…. which phrase in which email was casue for action by the FBI, 2 newspapers and the Republican leadership? You will not point to the phrase that would’ve caused you poor judgment (chronologically speaking) in launching an investigation. Was it asking for the picture of the 18 year old? Please share with us Dana.

Dana wrote, “And the Speaker of the House should have seen that red flag, when presented to him, and decided that at least an investigation was merited.”

With what phrase in the email? It’s ok to disagree. But please for once answer the question. You are allowed to say that you would’ve taken DRASTIC steps (poor judgement in my opinion) based on a phrase that alarmed you. But my judgment is in line with 2 newspapers , the FBI and the leadership who did not see enough to JUMP. Now you are second guessing (monday morning quarterbacking) and attacking somebody which we could all do given the information of IM’s (new info).

Dana wrote, “You can defend his actions and say that he did nothing wrong and that the Democrats are to blame for demagoguing this issue”

Nope. You too. Mud works in all sorts of situations that demand clarity.

Dana wrote, “As for “What exactly was the leadership supposed to do?” they were supposed to lead!

They did. Once presented with concrete info (as we all were) he was removed. Not like Democrat leadership with Stubbs and Clinton and others. Direct your outrage appropriately Dana and I’d start to back your words 100%.

I have not argued that the Speaker knew exactly what was going on; I have said that he had been presented, more than once, with information which suggested that something could be wrong and that an investigation was merited — and that he did nothing.

1) When was he presented with any info and 2) wasn’t this matter taken up with multiple people in leadership positions, including Hastert’s chief of staff and the clerk of the House?

Where is the evidence that “Hastert knew” that “something was wrong”, Dana? So far you have presented nothing that indicates he did, just speculated that because certain people in key positions close to Hastert had an idea that Foley was bad news, that Hastert knew “something was wrong” too.

I happen to think the Foley scandal has been overblown as well. What exactly was the leadership supposed to do? So far there is no crime, and while the ick factor is there I am not sure there are even grounds for expulsion or censure. I am glad Foley is gone, but I think we should keep all this in perspective.

If there were no grounds for either expulsion or censure, why are you glad that he’s gone?

The man resigned almost as soon as his actions were revealed; he, at least, knew that the jig was up!

As for “What exactly was the leadership supposed to do?,” they were supposed to lead! That’s what being a leader means, that’s what asking for a leadership position means you say you will do.

Arguing that “Hastert knew” is almost like arguing “Bush knew” about 9-11 before it happened. It can’t be proven, and in the case of Bush we know it’s not true, and with Hastert, I’m betting he didn’t know the full story, either.

I have not argued that the Speaker knew exactly what was going on; I have said that he had been presented, more than once, with information which suggested that something could be wrong and that an investigation was merited — and that he did nothing.

Go back to the alleged emails Dana. Look at the content and come back to us and PLEASE TELL US what was actionable… Please. People have confused you.

I’m certain that you understand the difference between what was actionable and what ought to have triggered an investigation, an investigation deeper than just taking Mr Foley’s word for things.

Mr Foley was a closeted homosexual,¹ not in any sort of permanent relationship. He was on a committee specifically for the protection of abused and exploited children. And then the House leadership was informed, as early as 2001, that he was writing e-mails that at least one page found to be strange and uncomfortable, enough so that he contacted his sponsoring congressman.

Good God, anyone in Mr Foley’s position, were he innocent of anything smarmy, should have been able to see that such an e-mail was sending up a red flag, and never sent another. And the Speaker of the House should have seen that red flag, when presented to him, and decided that at least an investigation was merited.

In 2001 or 2002 or even 2003, Mr Hastert might have thought that an investigation would show that nothing was amiss, but he had no way to know without an investigation. By 2003, he had not only Representative Kolbe’s presentation, through the clerk in 2001, but the clerk notified again in 2003 that something was fishy. The Speaker ignored more than one red flag here!

Mr Hastert almost certainly had no intention of protecting a potential sexual predator; had he known just what Mr Foley was doing, he’d probably have taken action early on. But when presented with what should have been alarming information that Mr Foley might be trouble, he chose to ignore the problem, to do nothing, and hope that nothing would come of it. And now he has been lying about what he knew and when he knew it.

You can defend his actions and say that he did nothing wrong and that the Democrats are to blame for demagoguing this issue — and when you wake up on November 8th to hear that Nancy Pelosi will become the Speaker of the House you’ll know just how much good defending what even you would certainly admit looks bad (if it didn’t look bad, the Democrats couldn’t demagogue it) has done.
_____________
¹- Closeted in that he had not come “out,” but it was apparently not much of a secret in Washington.

Since all politics is local, the party control of Congress will depend on the outcome of 435 separate local elections, and there are only a handful of races that are competitive or likely to change hands. RCP puts the figure at 40. That’s roughly 10%…

Nobody (including 2 newspapers, the FBI, Republican leadership), thought the content in the emails (yes the media did their job with you and help you with confusion – please get unconfused) were actionable with a further investigation.

You are correct that they “might not have known the extent of the problems” and then you some how think that investigations were warranted based on the information that was knows to all those groups of people. You are mistaken. It is easy to be a Monday Morning quarterback. It’s how liberals operate in a post Iraq invasion atmospere drumming up lying everday and “see another soldier died” rhetoric. It doesn’t make you look smarter Dana by posting this article that I already saw. Nobody knew the extent of the problem until 10 days ago when the IM’s came out. And again if the IM’s were held by anybody they can be held accountable for a CRIME.

Dana makes a fales accusation with an analogy saying, “This is remarkably similar to the actions of the bishops (and yes, I’m a Mass-every-Sunday cradle Catholic) in trying to sweep the problems with priests under the rug:”

Go back to the alleged emails Dana. Look at the content and come back to us and PLEASE TELL US what was actionable… Please. People have confused you.

The catholic bishop and priest scenario is not analogous because there were bishops and preists and cardinals who KNEW of a crime (not just an email asking for an 18 year old’s photo for jimminy cricket’s sake) and yet the bishops and cardinals moved priests around to other parishes. Full disclosure for me : my daughters are in CCD classes as we speak. It’d be nice if false accusations were stopped. Especially from people who are supposed to be on our side.

Dana wrote, “The House leadership did the same damned thing!

I’m sorry. Which emails said what making things actionable? I’m sorry. What crime was reported?

Dana wrote, “and it’s all because they didn’t do their duty!”

Do their duty of what based on what exact information. Please tell us all exactly what phrase in what email would’ve promted you to do what? Remembering the FBI, 2 newspapers and the Republican leadership is in the same boat. Why do I love Dennis Prager? Because he strives for clarity. I love clarity Dana. Please provide it. I’ll be glad to bend based on new information.

Arguing that “Hastert knew” is almost like arguing “Bush knew” about 9-11 before it happened. It can’t be proven, and in the case of Bush we know it’s not true, and with Hastert, I’m betting he didn’t know the full story, either.

As for the polls, wait and see. Polls can be very misleading and the elctions are a few weeks away. I will vote for the Republicans this year because I do not want to cut and run from Iraq and because I do not want two years of investigations and impeachment hearings.

From The Washington Post:

House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert’s chief of staff confronted then-Rep. Mark Foley about his inappropriate social contact with male pages well before the speaker said aides in his office took any action, a current congressional staff member with personal knowledge of Foley and his behavior with pages said yesterday.

The staff member said Hastert’s chief of staff, Scott Palmer, met with the Florida Republican at the Capitol to discuss complaints about Foley’s behavior toward pages. The alleged meeting occurred long before Hastert says aides in his office dispatched Rep. John M. Shimkus (R-Ill.) and the clerk of the House in November 2005 to confront Foley about troubling e-mails he had sent to a Louisiana boy.

The staff member’s account buttresses the position of Foley’s onetime chief of staff, Kirk Fordham, who said earlier this week that he had appealed to Palmer in 2003 or earlier to intervene, after Fordham’s own efforts to stop Foley’s behavior had failed. Fordham said Foley and Palmer, one of the most powerful figures in the House of Representatives, met within days to discuss the allegations.

Palmer said this week that the meeting Fordham described “did not happen.” Timothy J. Heaphy, Fordham’s attorney, said yesterday that Fordham is prepared to testify under oath that he had arranged the meeting and that both Foley and Palmer told him the meeting had taken place. Fordham spent more than three hours with the FBI on Thursday, and Heaphy said that on Friday he contacted the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to offer his client’s cooperation. . . .

Hastert maintains that he knew nothing of Foley’s actions until last week, when the story first broke and Foley resigned. His stance contradicts that of House Majority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) and National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Thomas M. Reynolds (R-N.Y.), both of whom said they had informed Hastert this spring.

And then this came out today:

Rep. Jim Kolbe said Tuesday he passed along a complaint about inappropriate e-mails from Foley to Foley’s office and the clerk of the House but took no further action when learning of the incident.

A former page sponsored by Kolbe contacted the Arizona Republican’s office in 2000 or 2001, well before House leaders say they first learned of inappropriate messages sent by Foley.

“Some time after leaving the Page program, an individual I had appointed as a Page contacted my office to say he had received e-mails from Rep. Foley that made him uncomfortable,” Kolbe said in a statement. “I was not shown the content of the messages and was not told they were sexually explicit. It was my recommendation that this complaint be passed along to Rep. Foley’s office and the clerk who supervised the Page program. This was done promptly.”

Are we supposed to believe that Jeff Trandahl, the Clerk of the House, was contacted about something as potentially damaging as a Republican congressman saying or writing things that the pages found uncomfortable, and the clerk declined to tell the Speaker? If was assume that Mr Trandahl contacted Mr Hastert’s staff rather than the Speaker personally, are we expected to believe that a member of his staff would decide not to inform the Speaker about such a thing? Is there anyone who would believe such a thing would happen?

Are the Democrats taking advantage? Yup, sure are! Does that mean that the House leadership behaved anywhere close to responsibly? Nope, sure doesn’t!

They knew before the 2004 elections, before the 2002 elections, that there were problems with Mr Foley’s behavior. They might not have known the extent of the problems, but they took no efforts to investigate and find out!

This is remarkably similar to the actions of the bishops (and yes, I’m a Mass-every-Sunday cradle Catholic) in trying to sweep the problems with priests under the rug: don’t look too closely, believe your friends rather than check the evidence, think that they’re just misunderstood, and hope that if this crap stays buried long enough, it’ll just go away. Well, it didn’t go away, and the Church was hurt a lot worse when the revelations emerged and the actions of the bishops were exposed.

The House leadership did the same damned thing! They didn’t take action in 2002, when they were in no danger of losing control of the House, and they took no action in 2004, when they were in no danger of losing control of the House, and now it comes out, at a time when we might just lose control of the House, and it’s all because they didn’t do their duty!

I have more on this in Knowing when it’s time to go and Speaker Hastert: It’s time to go.

Sister Toldjah has a round-up….