This is obviously easier in hindsight, but when you read the first batch of emails didn’t you get a slightly icky feeling that made you pretty sure that there wasn’t an innocent explanation.
Given that, and given Foley has a seat that would be considered competitve in an open election, you have to wonder if political considerations didn’t come into play. (As well as the “protect our guy” syndrome.)
Clear answers need to be given, or heads should roll. Pages should not need to be protected from Members of Congress!
Comment by SoloD — Saturday, September 30, 2024 @ 4:06 pm
I concur.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Saturday, September 30, 2024 @ 5:11 pm
I have a slightly different take, based in part on having once been in a position (only woman in relevant bit of organization) to get reports of sexual harassment. It was clear to me that it would be wrong to assume there was something to each of these allegations, of course, but it was equally clear that I had to check them out, at least informally: ask around, see whether there seemed to be a real problem, etc.
In this case, the pages are teenagers living away from their parents. They are in a real sense the charges of the Congress. I think that as soon as someone knew that there were emails that had creeped out a page, they had an obligation to check it out — again, not necessarily with a formal investigation, but at the very least by doing the kind of inquiry that was so productive for ABC news.
As I wrote on my blog: it is our responsibility, as adults, to protect children. It was the Congressional leadership’s more particular job to protect the pages. By not doing anything, they let someone who turns out to be a repeat offender to go on hitting on sixteen year olds for nearly a year. And that’s wrong.
Especially since there would have been various ways of dealing with this relatively quietly, in a way that would not have had to cost them politically.
Comment by hilzoy — Sunday, October 1, 2024 @ 7:53 am
I think one of the telling signs in politics of something going on behind the scene is how fast someone resigns over scandal, or how fast other members of Congress denounce that person. If that person resigns, or is aggressively denounced quickly, then someone knew something.
Foley resigned really really fast. Now, two days later, the GOP is calling for his head. Strangely quick.
Rep Jefferson only got calls to step aside after all his cold hard cash was found. Which was a number of weeks I believe. I would sense the Democratic leadership was unaware, or only passively aware.
Ney, Cunningham, Trafficant? How long from initial reports to resignation or removal?
It’s spoiled food for thought.
Comment by eric — Sunday, October 1, 2024 @ 10:23 am
[...] Steven Taylor has been following this whole Foley fiasco (see here, here, and here (he has posted several other posts on this topic, but these are the most extensive). Much to my dismay, I find that I’m too much of a cynic to be terribly surprised at this sort of thing. [...]
This is obviously easier in hindsight, but when you read the first batch of emails didn’t you get a slightly icky feeling that made you pretty sure that there wasn’t an innocent explanation.
Given that, and given Foley has a seat that would be considered competitve in an open election, you have to wonder if political considerations didn’t come into play. (As well as the “protect our guy” syndrome.)
Clear answers need to be given, or heads should roll. Pages should not need to be protected from Members of Congress!
Comment by SoloD — Saturday, September 30, 2024 @ 4:06 pm
I concur.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Saturday, September 30, 2024 @ 5:11 pm
I have a slightly different take, based in part on having once been in a position (only woman in relevant bit of organization) to get reports of sexual harassment. It was clear to me that it would be wrong to assume there was something to each of these allegations, of course, but it was equally clear that I had to check them out, at least informally: ask around, see whether there seemed to be a real problem, etc.
In this case, the pages are teenagers living away from their parents. They are in a real sense the charges of the Congress. I think that as soon as someone knew that there were emails that had creeped out a page, they had an obligation to check it out — again, not necessarily with a formal investigation, but at the very least by doing the kind of inquiry that was so productive for ABC news.
As I wrote on my blog: it is our responsibility, as adults, to protect children. It was the Congressional leadership’s more particular job to protect the pages. By not doing anything, they let someone who turns out to be a repeat offender to go on hitting on sixteen year olds for nearly a year. And that’s wrong.
Especially since there would have been various ways of dealing with this relatively quietly, in a way that would not have had to cost them politically.
Comment by hilzoy — Sunday, October 1, 2024 @ 7:53 am
I think one of the telling signs in politics of something going on behind the scene is how fast someone resigns over scandal, or how fast other members of Congress denounce that person. If that person resigns, or is aggressively denounced quickly, then someone knew something.
Foley resigned really really fast. Now, two days later, the GOP is calling for his head. Strangely quick.
Rep Jefferson only got calls to step aside after all his cold hard cash was found. Which was a number of weeks I believe. I would sense the Democratic leadership was unaware, or only passively aware.
Ney, Cunningham, Trafficant? How long from initial reports to resignation or removal?
It’s spoiled food for thought.
Comment by eric — Sunday, October 1, 2024 @ 10:23 am
[...] Steven Taylor has been following this whole Foley fiasco (see here, here, and here (he has posted several other posts on this topic, but these are the most extensive). Much to my dismay, I find that I’m too much of a cynic to be terribly surprised at this sort of thing. [...]
Pingback by Pros and Cons » Foley’s Folly (and Republicans’ Nightmare) — Monday, October 2, 2024 @ 7:09 am