"Didn't Alexander's office have an obligation to make sure that Foley was not hitting on other kids?"
A great Harper's article on Foleygate includes this passage about Rodney Alexander's mishandling of the matter (my emphs):
Congressman Alexander's office declined to comment on the matter, apart from issuing a brief statement emailed to me on May 31 by press secretary Adam Terry: "When these emails were brought to our attention last year our office reviewed them and decided that it would be best to contact the individual's parents. This decision, on behalf of our office, was based on the sensitivity of the issue. Our office did, in fact, contact the parents, and we feel that they (the juvenile's parents) should decide the best course of action to take concerning the dialogue outlined in the emails." I had a number of other questions I wanted to ask-- for example, although the ex-page's parents were understandably concerned about their son's name coming out in the press, didn't Alexander's office have an obligation to make sure that Foley was not hitting on other kids?-- but Terry did not reply to further requests for comment.Why does the media-- especially Louisiana media-- accept the false claim that these were merely "overfriendly" emails, and that Alexander's handling of them was entirely sensible and acceptable? The emails WERE NOT merely "outlined dialogue". They also included reports of inappropriate behavior between a Congressman and other pages, but Alexander's office did NOTHING about that. His office totally screwed up, and left kids at risk, and yet Sen. Vitter, Rep. McCrery and Rep. Boustany will defend Alexander's indefensible, grossly negligent handling of the matter. Vitter is "proud" of Alexander, while McCrery says he's beyond criticism. The outrage in this state is minimal, and it should be at an apex. Why is that? How can you look at the facts of this matter, and actually READ the emails, and call for Hastert's head but not Alexander's?
Advertisement
Because Alexander, took action to protect the kids, by going to the leadership of the House. Whose job it was to known precisely what actions could be taken. Hastert, did nothing! Hastert should have reported this to the Ethics Committee which is responsible for taking action against US Congress Representatives inappropriate behavior.
Instead, Hastert, or his staff, took this to Shimkus, who is head of the page board, which is responsible for the pages behavior. The pages behavior was NOT the issue.
Alexander, gets a pass...could he have done more, sure. He at least acted in good faith, by speaking to the parents and taking the issue to the Leadership of the House...this is all about Hastert's negligence not Alexander. If nothing else, Hastert should have given Alexander direction on how to handle the matter, to ensure kids were not at risk...but what he did was let Alexander beleive the problem would be handled...and then did nothing.This to me is like a teacher making a report about another teacher on staff to the Principle...it is then the Principles responsiblity to ensure the matter is handled appropriately. The reporting teacher has reason to beleive they have acted in the best interst of the child with regard to their safety and would not necessarily think they needed to do more, having notified the correct official and authority for the school.October 13, 2006 5:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Alexander did not act in good faith, and gets no pass because he treated this issue as one that involved only one page and one Congressman.
He did not show the emails to Hastert, and purposely "notified" Hastert's of an "issue" that was narrow in scope. The emails show that MULTIPLE kids might be at risk, not just this one page Alexander was concerned about.
October 13, 2006 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
He gets a pass, because he was not in a leadership role vs. Hastert.
What is the standard protocol here. Can a congress person simply engage the Speaker of the House whenever, or does he need to go through aides and staffers like most everyone else to get to the Speaker?
What is the basis for the assertion of his intent being " purposeful'. The reported facts, indicate, that what was told to him was narrow in scope.
OK, I see this point, and yet it is just as possible to think that Foley simply may have been attracted to the one kid. Alexander.according to reports, was given only the emails from the page in his district, and the parents of that page also told him they did not want to pursue the issue other than to have Foley not ever contact their child again.
Given that set of facts, Alexander, had no need to contact anyone but Foley, if he was not looking out for the best interest of the page program. I think he did want the kids protected and that is why he went to to Hastert, in hopes, that the speaker could speak to Foley and get him to cease his predatory behavior.
I agree that Alexander could have done more, his actions were not the best given the limited scope of what he actually did...but Hastert, had a bigger responsibility and gets the lions share of this blame, in my book.
I think Reynolds, Boehner, and Hastert, should all go! There is not an ADULT parent in the world who would not be alarmed by some 50 plus year old man asking their child to send him a picture, whether it was their daughter or their son. I cannot think of one parent who would call that 'overly-friendly' vs. sexual predatory behavior.
What I find so unforgiveable is that the kid...described Foley's request as sick by writing the wrote 13 times...which says to me that if a teenager got the message this was perverse...how the heck could FOUR adults describe it as 'over-friendly'?
Kick all the bums out.
Here is my question to you though, do you think the parents had an obligation to see that this did not happen to other kids and to make certain that they were not at risk..since at least they had been alerted? What obligation did they have to the public or page program?
October 14, 2006 7:06 AM | Reply | Permalink