GOP pages warned about Foley in 2001

The head of the page alumni association told ABC News that Republican pages were warned about Foley in 2001:

Matthew Loraditch, a page in the 2001-2002 class, told ABC News he and other pages were warned about Foley by a supervisor in the House Clerk's office.

Loraditch, the president of the Page Alumni Association, said the pages were told "don't get too wrapped up in him being too nice to you and all that kind of stuff."

Staff members at the House Clerk's office did not return calls seeking comment.

Some of the sexually explicit instant messages that led to Foley's abrupt resignation Friday were sent to pages in Loraditch's class.

Pages report to either Republican or Democratic supervisors, depending on the political party of the member of Congress who nominate them for the page program.

Several Democratic pages tell ABC News they received no such warnings about Foley. [Emphasis added.]

So Democrat-sponsored pages were left in the dark. How very Republican--Let's protect our own and leave their kids to the chickenhawk.

This whole scandal is typical of the Republican way of doing business. Put the sex predator in charge of the child abuse committee, the lumber baron in charge of the forests, the other chickenhawks in charge of the war....

Update: ABC News reports that House Republicans might face a criminal investigation for the coverup.

As if that weren't enough, John Aravosis reportes that "GOP Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL) let Foley spend "a lot of time" with pages, including private dinner with one, after GOP knew Foley was a problem."

[HT: Crooks and Liars.]

Comments

[md 20/400]

Possible GOP spin: that's because the Democrats don't care about their pages.

[mudkitty]

October Surprise!

[Count Zero]

Is this part of the "No Child left Behind" mandate?

[Davis]

Remember those words Newt Gingrich recommended they use to describe Democrats? Sick, bizarre, weird, etc.

[figleaf]

What the Sam Hill were they thinking anyway? What could they *possibly* have been going through their minds? "We hate their parents so we don't care who molests their children?" How about "Solicit man-boy sex from a *Democrat?* What kind of perverts do you think we are?" Or maybe "'Democrat' parents had nothing to worry about since a good Republican like Mark Foley would only want sex with his own party's children."

The whole sorry mess is hard to deal with but this kind of partisan callousness just takes the cake.

figleaf

[a]

Can someone explain where the line is drawn between hitting on people and being a "sex predator"?

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

Here's the line: Adults (LINE-------------------/LINE) Children. (Line not drawn to scale. The real line is about 300 miles long, but you get the idea.)

[The Phantom]

Lindsay

So you'll agree that any fifty plus pervert who comes on to sixteen or seventeen old boys is to be censured?

Well, we do agree. Make that a 400 mile line. 500, even.

[a]

I understood the general point, but if 16 is the age of consent I still don't get the outrage. Nor do I see the warrant for the term "pervert."

[a]

Just to add data: 16 is the age of consent in DC. If you look at ages of consent by U.S. state, 16 is the median. So like it or not there's a rough social consensus that at that age, you can make up your own mind about how to respond to being hit on. Pedophila therefore seems like the wrong term.

To justify a language about "perverts" and the like you either have to go after the gayness, or argue that certain age gaps are out of bounds in any relationship gay or straight.