Anyone who's been on for some time knows how passionate I am when it comes to child predators and crimes against children, so this won't come as a surprise to you.



And more than email there is also instant message conversations as well.

Link to stories

What I find most hypocritical about Foley is that he crusaded for tough laws against those who used the Internet for sexual exploitation of children. This just shows me he didn't give a rat's behind about the tough laws he just wanted the potential votes it could get him.

Questions for debate:

1. Do you believe Mark Foley should goto jail under legislation he helped get passed in congress for his sexual exploitations online?

2. If not. Why?



Edit to add: Granted he was not a child but he was still a minor under state laws and all laws should apply.

1. Do you believe Mark Foley should goto jail under legislation he helped get passed in congress for his sexual exploitations online?

I still have to look up the legislation. I had thought that I needed more damning information beyond the fact that it was serious enough to get him to resign.

But after seeing this I am leaning toward wanting to see some heads roll. This seems like a coverup of activity and perverse continuation of service as the chair of the House Sex offender caucus. Granted this is a blog post but it is sourced.

Oh and watch yourself this is non-pg content.

2. If not. Why?

If this is true, I am with you Eeyore and want to see more heads roll. There is absolutely no excuse for this, none at all!

How can we ever know if somebody is pressing for legislation for the good of the people or just votes.

Foley's advocating one thing and allegedly doing the opposite, reminds me of the quotatation from Shakespeare below:



Shakespeare - From Hamlet (III, ii, 239)

1. Do you believe Mark Foley should go to jail under legislation he helped get passed in congress for his sexual exploitations online?

I’m not sure all the facts are in yet. There was a suggestion on Hardball that Foley resigned to keep more damaging information from coming out.

Foley should be prosecuted, then possibly jailed, under whatever laws he may have broken.

Questions for debate:

1. Do you believe Mark Foley should goto jail under legislation he helped get passed in congress for his sexual exploitations online?


I believe the phrase runs 'you live by the sword, you die by the sword." I also doubt anyone could make the case that Mr. Foley did not clearly know what he was doing was illegal and that he would pay a heavy price if caught.

Given this reality he should be charged as appropriate and if his crime falls under laws he helped enact, it seems quite fair he should be given a dose of his own medicne.

Do you believe Mark Foley should go to jail under legislation he helped get passed in congress for his sexual exploitations online?

Should an investigation result in evidence that Foley has broken the law, he should be prosecuted and, if found guilty, punished appropriately - regardless of whether he helped pass the legislation or not. If, as former FBI agent Brad Garret claims, the evidence "adds up to soliciting underage children for sex", I expect he's right in adding "that could potentially get you a number of years". If so, that's exactly what he should get.

Then I'm sure you'll agree with me that this dirtbag is getting his just desserts. I'm a liberal, but I have zero tolerance for child molesting perverts---especially the blatantly hypocritical kind.

The odd thing is the same day the story broke I rented the DVD Hard Candy, a film about a possible Internet predator who hits on the wrong girl online.

I remember in my Criminology classes how it was explained that in prison child killers and pedophiles are on the very bottom of the food chain. Many times in prison riots the kiddie sex offenders are the first ones to get throttled by other inmates. I've always felt that worked a bit like a self-cleaning oven.

Questions for debate:

Do you believe Mark Foley should goto jail under legislation he helped get passed in congress for his sexual exploitations online?

Ugh. After reading the instant messages between Foley and the congressional page, I was severely creeped out. Foley comes off as someone who has been around the block once or twice and I doubt he was limiting his exploits just to dirty talk.

If indicted, put on trial and found guilty by a jury I would hope the judge would give him the maximum sentence possible and then send him STRAIGHT TO FREAKIN' JAIL and not some cushy country club jail either. I'd strip his Congressional pension and any other perks he got from violating the public's trust and toss him in with the rest of the bottom feeders.

Politically, the best revenge would be if Foley's safe Republican seat flipped Democratic and losing that seat proved to be the catalyst that put Dennis Hastert and anyone else that knew of Foley's misdeeds into the minority.

Do you believe Mark Foley should goto jail under legislation he helped get passed in congress for his sexual exploitations online?
It doesn't matter who authored the law. Is it constitutional? Then I expect Foley to receive a fair sentence if he's found guilty of soliciting to a minor.


Well, House Majority Leader Boehner has backpedaled from his original spiel to the Post. He can't remember if he informed Hastert. He either wants to take the heat or has another explanation, because that leaves himself, Foley's former chief of staff, Rep. Rodney Alexander and Rep. Tom Reynolds, the "the head of the National Republican Congressional Committee" (AMERICAblog). It's a blog so I'm taking it with a grain of salt at this time. I assume a federal investigation will look into the allegations if it hasn't already started. We might find out if there was a cover up with more FBI raids on the Hill.

Kudos Lesly, you beat me to the punch by a 11 minutes.

I like Andrew M. Greely when I see him on talk shows, but I am no fan of his potboiler novels. Yet one of his books, The Priestly Sins, addresses not only the question of pedophilia in the Catholic Church, but the cover up by bishops.

http://www.amazon.com/Priestly-Sins-Andrew...TF8&s=books

It seems there’s a parallel between the Catholic Church scandal and the Foley matter.

What to do with Foley, if convicted, is a no-brainer. What to do with members of House Leadership who allegedly covered this up is another question.



If John Boehner knew, why didn’t he take action? Did he talk to Hastert or didn’t he? If Boehner knew, I’m sure his predecessor, Tom DeLay also knew.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/ne...t_id=1003189478


Chris Matthews worked for Speaker Tip O’Neill. The last part of his commentary in the video linked below indicates the seriousness of the matter.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3096434/

Note: Go to the top right of the page. It's the first video.

I think we need a special prosecutor to investigate not only Foley, but members of House leadership who may have covered this up. Let the chips fall where they may.

I have to agree with BoF on this matter. Anyone who helped try and cover this up in congress needs to be out of public service and have their congressional pension stripped.

Do you believe Mark Foley should goto jail under legislation he helped get passed in congress for his sexual exploitations online?

Even though I appreciate the ironic drama of this situation, I don't think jail time is the appropriate punishment.

The guy seems to be a sick puppy who has a big problem with self-loathing. Or maybe not, and in which case he must be a sociopath. Either way, prison will make him a worse criminal, and since this crime doesn't involve life or lethal injection, I would, if I were the judge, get him into treatment quick.

First thing he has to do is come to terms with his own homosexuality. Man, when you look at the world with this perspective, there are a ton of people with this issue. They hide behind various structures and philosophies, and often they do this sort of crime within the shadows of their lives.

Then there's something going on about abusing young people. Not sure how this works, but it manifests itself in heterosexuals too. Must have something to do about fearing adults.

I would however, since I'm playing judge here, slap the bozo with a felony conviction and list his tush on the national sexual predator list. The felony conviction would remove his right to vote and constrict his chances of employment. The sexual predator listing would make it hard to live in virtually any community.

But I don't think a judge really has to do this, because it happens automatically.

What the Congress does about this is beyond my pretend judge authority. I imagine he'll be cut off from any perks.

This isn't something you can rehab against AM

Scum like Foley deserve to be in prison. It just makes me even more sick to see how he crusaded for legislation which goes after those using the internet to exploit minors sexually and he is one of the very ones doing it.

He is a pathological pedophile with obviously zero control over his impulses. He's yet another example of men who, despite the risks and all that is at stake, must fulfill the deep-seated, abhorrant urges at any cost.


Do you believe Mark Foley should goto jail under legislation he helped get passed in congress for his sexual exploitations online?
Absolutely. Without a doubt. And his face and name should be plastered across every newscast and in every newspaper. He should never have access to any minor in any context. That could be accomplished if he were put behind bars and granted no access to computers.

Anyone who knew of his actions and didn't do anything about it should also be held criminally responsible.

Can I get an Amen?

He is a predator- make no mistake- and this should be a no brainer.

Any politician that helped keep this secret "under the radar" should be thrown out of office. Pity if they are not.

That's it, Sleeper? Well, okay, an unsupported statement. I'll just file it as such.

Think about this angle: The guy is a closet homosexual. He'll be showering with men in the slammer. Might prison time actually be a reward?

Heh, throw the rabbit into the briar patch, that'll teach him.

After reading this, maybe you could expand on your notion that this is being covered up. Thank you.

The report said the speaker "does not explicitly recall this conversation," but that "he has no reason to dispute Congressman Reynolds' recollection that he reported to him on the problem and its resolution."


FI thanks for the link, but remember this is a debate site and not a link posting site. What exactly is your take on this development?



To me, this is a clear political reaction to the obvious fact that with Reynolds going public that he relayed this information to the House Leadership then people are going to want some heads to roll. This is an attempt to place the leadership on the best moral position possible by stopping the damage from taking more Republican representatives and the key Republican leaders down with them.

In the face of the evidence that is surfacing this is taking the politically astute position of distancing one from someone who can be accused of being a homosexual pedophile.



This "smoking gun" directly connects Hastert to this incident. Hastert has to distance himself a little from his initial comments while being careful to not make it seem that he is attacking Reynolds, the person who handled this information appropriately.

See, first there is the position that this is the first Hastert has heard about the situation, then there is the information that House Leadership was properly informed.

This article sums up the dilemma well.


link--Chicago Tribune

So the attempt is to deflect arguably criminal conspiracy or negligence to gross incompetence. I mean don't you want the leader of your political party remembering the day he was informed of one of your members tendencies toward pedophilia?

The most persuasive argument for Hastert's incompetency defense versus gross misbehavior lies in this statement in his press release.

Sexually Explicit Instant Message Transcript

link

I think the best case scenario for House republican leadership is that the hid behind a child's need for privacy to try to handle a situation internally and failed to adequately investigate the situation, perhaps in fear of what would be revealed when the stones were overturned.

Yet, how, in light of this serious development, the House leadership refrained from doing basic damage control and more basic application of decency is a perverse question that remains for me. Foley was left as co-chairman of the House's Missing and Exploited Children Caucus. This I think will be the matter that causes heads to roll politically. The indignation of today will not atone for the incompetence of yesterday on this matter.

So Foley went forward and was able to secure legislation to better protect the children of the country from people like himself and was allowed to celebrate in his accomplishment in July, 2006.


FOLEY CHILD SAFETY LEGISLATION PASSES SENATE

Sadly, it seems that Foley's inappropriate behavior happened before his own law could be used against him. But I'm sure older laws will have something to say about his behavior, especially if these communications crossed state lines.

1. Do you believe Mark Foley should goto jail under legislation he helped get passed in congress for his sexual exploitations online?

Let me be the first to say, "Probably not".

To be clear, I wouldn't lose a wink of sleep if pedophiles, convicted on overwhelming material evidence, were shot on live TV. I have no use for those people no more than anybody here. I hope they have their own special place in hell reserved for them.

But be consistent. When a 16 year old does harm, we routinely try them as adults. But when they are victims, they are automatically children. Which subjective title does the intern have in this case? The "victim" in this case because it makes for a better news story?

Wait - don't tell me - it is uncommon for 16 year olds to have sex, right?

That's problem #1. We're not talking about an 8 year old that clearly needs protection. We're talking about someone that can legally drive a motor vehicle next to me on the highway.

Problem #2 for me is that no physical contact took place. Do we convict Foley because of something we assume he would do in real life? Is there any evidence he's physically molested anybody? What is the crime? He talks dirty? I haven't read the emails and quite frankly, probably never will. I get the idea.

Foley and the GOP leadership continue to flaunt their hypocrisy because when all else fails, they will legislate illegal activities into legal ones. This to me, is merely another pathetic example of what current "republicans" (trust me - I use that term loosely) are all about. It's all about politics over principle.

Foley should have resigned because it was the decent thing to do. As for the rest, it's simple politics to me.

I agree in part with Dayton Rocker and Author/Musician that while certainly creepy, Mark Foley has not yet ("yet" being the operative word here) accused of actually engaging in inappropriate sexual relations with underage youths. Prince once wrote, "If a man is considered guilty for what goes on in his mind/Then give me the electric chair for all my future crimes." We have not reached the point where we can prosecute someone merely for having impure thoughts.

That said, events ARE moving very rapidly and the "C" word---Cover-up---is going to start get thrown around pretty soon.

WASHINGTON — Sexually explicit messages from former Rep. Mark Foley to one former congressional page might be just the tip of the iceberg, the leader of an alumni association for former congressional pages told Scripps Howard News Service on Saturday.

While Foley resigned this week after published reports of "friendly" e-mails to one 16-year-old male page and the pending broadcast of more sexually explicit instant messages, similar graphic messages from him were received by at least three other teenage boys who once worked in the page program, said Matthew Loraditch, a Maryland college senior who runs the U.S. House Page Alumni Association's Internet message board.

"I've known about them (messages) for several years now," he said Saturday.

"It was more like, 'Hey, look at this,' " said Loraditch, 21, who served in the page program in the 2001-02 session. "I don't think the people in question felt that uncomfortable. It was more, 'Ooh, look at that creepy guy.'

"It was definitely crossing-the-line stuff. The instant message stuff, and stuff I've seen and heard about, definitely couldn't be misconstrued" as merely "friendly" or innocent, Loraditch said.

link

The bigger problem for the GOP is the cliched question of what did Speaker Hastert know and when did he know it? The answer could have a impact far beyond keeping Foley's previously safe seat in Republican control. The Democrats will pound Hastert and other Republican leaders over whether they took the rumors of Foley's inappropriate communications seriously or not.

Here in Ohio , when Representative Bob Ney resigned, the GOP successfully replaced him with state senator Joy Padgett, so though she was hand-picked by Ney, her name, not his, will appear on the ballot in a 57 percent Republican district. Not so, for whomever steps in for Foley, will get any votes cast for Foley but his name will be the one on the ballot. That name is toxic right now.

Republicans and the White House are saying the House Ethics Committee can handle this and no independent prosecutor or outside agency like the FBI or Justice Department needs to step in. I think that's a mistake. The GOP needs to be aggressive and pro-active in finding out what happened here and whether it's the tip of the iceberg of a bigger problem.

The Republican majority in the House is already at risk. An issue like this changes undecideds into decidedly against incumbents and can discourage other voters who are disgusted by hypocrisy in high places. Hastert and the boys need to get out front because right now they're dying a slow death of a thousand little cuts.

Politics are part of the equation. Another part of it is Americans are sick of politicians acting like they are part of a privileged class and the rules they write for the rest of us, don't apply to them.

DR,

Interesting take on #1 -- what does the age of consent really mean? Is it similar to driving a car?

Let's see, driving a car is a very dangerous activity. More people die or are seriously injured on the roadways than in war zones. Certainly more people are physically hurt on the roadways than through sexual activities.

So, are we being somewhat illogical in our takes about a 16-year-old having sex? Apparently, very much so. This is a hot-button emotional issue. Yet the danger isn't anything approaching that of driving a car, unless we include emotional damage that might occur.

I'm not so sure that sixteen-year-olds would be damaged emotionally, but then it begs a question as to when a human being, in general, matures enough to handle sex.

On #2, good point. Foley exposed himself as a homosexual who is still lurking in his closet, but also an adult who is attracted to 16-year-olds. I think the law does come down hard on those who solicit sex from underaged people, whatever the sexual orientation.

Personally, I think if you are old enough to have the judgement required to operate a ton of metal moving at 65 MPH next to me and my family, you might have the judgement required to deal with issues in your personal life. Again - to be clear - I am not advocating pedophilia. I simply see a subjective standard that twists in the direction of favorable winds. If this intern mowed down half of congress with an AK-47, is there anybody here that thinks he wouldn't be tried as an adult?

And secondly, your perception of what happened is opposite of my perception in which case, niether of us know what went on in Foley's mind. We both percieve something different.

You are convinced Foley is a closet homosexual who preys on 16 year olds. My perception is that Foley is a bored husband/father looking for cheap thrills to make up for something lacking in his marriage.

Who is correct? Neither of us. We'll never know because the minute lawyers get involved, any semblance to the truth will get thrown out the window.

DaytonRocker, to the best of my knowledge, Foley is unmarried and has no children.

Apologies for the one-liner, but I wanted to clarify.

Thanks for the update - I have no doubt you might be correct about that. But it does not change my perception that this was about something missing in his life (whether he is married or not) as opposed to acting on his sexual tendacies. I mean, face it. If he wanted to have homosexual sex with a 16 year old boy, why not just go here (WARNING: Graphic content not safe for work)?

Okay DR, we're both armchair psychologists here. One question:

If Foley isn't in the homosexual closet, how come he went after a boy and not an American Beauty?

I don't think Foley's sexual orientation is pertinant.

He went after someone who was not of legal age to consent. It wouldn't have been any different if he had done the same with a girl.

At this point I think the cover up is going to be a bigger issue.

Actually, I've found your statement to be completely false. Almost all states - including Washington DC - have an age of consent of 16. Under DC law, the act of physical sex between the two would have been legal. This article (A blogger) seems to look at it pretty well. Most states have an age of consent at 16. The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 that Foley co-sponsored makes it illegal to solicit sex with someone under the age of 18. Clearly, these laws contradict each other. But in any event, this is not pedophilia.

The irony of this will be when someone figures out that Foley could have sodomized the kid legally and stayed out of trouble as opposed to fantasizing about it in an email exchange.

That is ironic. Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 sounds like a watered down No Child Left Behind and neither law impacts the age of consent. So, it appears that, although Foley was breaking the law thanks to his own bill the GOP was more concerned with the appearance of improper contact with underage pages, because Foley would’ve been fine if he had sex with one but the Family Values party has an interest in protecting its image. Could one of these have worked as well?

Edited to add: Actually, has his bill even gone into effect? Foley can't be charged ex post facto.

Edited again: According to this it became public law on July 27, 2006. The IM conversation ABC posted is believed to be 3 years old, and the email conversation is a year old or occurred this spring, I don't remember which. Unless someone recent comes up Foley has nothing to worry about.

Last, last edit: I meant to say the Child Pornography Protection Act of 1996 when I mentioned NCLB!

My main point was that Foley’s sexual orientation was not relevant and that the action would be the same whether the instant messages had gone to a boy or girl
Here's comparison that makes this whole thing pathetic.

http://www.actwin.com/eatonohio/gay/consent.htm

Above is a link to age of consent laws in each state. It is interesting to not that Florida, Foley’s home state, the age of consent is 18. Was the boy in Washington or Florida when the message was sent?

For years Rush Limbaugh (a man the Republican majority made an "honorary member of Congress" railed about sending junkies to jail. When we found out that the honorary member of Congress was less than honorable - a junkie himself. Rush hired an expensive lawyer to get his rear end out of a jam.


Ah, do as I say not as I do.

Now Foley sponsors a bill damning what he himself is doing.

Ah, again do as I say not as I do.

I just wonder, DR, if parents of Congressional pages would dismiss this as casually as you do.

Although I have strong thoughts on this subject, I am a bit less passionate than my friend Sleeper.

As a (now retired) teacher in the public schools, I have seen stuff like this play out. In one instance a regular teacher walked into a restroom and caught a substitute fondling a student. The substitute was fired and teacher suspended for not reporting the incident in a timely fashion. The teacher did get his job back, but the substitute was gone and the regular teacher’s reputation tarnished.

Whether or not Foley's emails were illegal, they were still inappropriate. We need, if not a special prosecutor or at least a special investigator to look into the alleged coverup. Letting Dennis Hastert and the other Republican leadership members disaster[t]s investigate this, would be a classic example of the fox guarding the chicken coop. There is another anaology involving chickens - they are coming home to roost for the majority party.

What's your point? Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer. His mounds of hypocrisy make him mounds of money. That's his only goal. I listen to him 3 hours a day just like I listen to Sean Hannity for 2 hours a day when I rarely - if ever - agree with them. Why? Because they entertain me just like a monkey standing next to the guy with an accordian. To compare Limbaugh to an elected official seems like petty justification to me.

I am not casually dismissing Foley's actions. I stated that his resignation was the decent thing to do. But I am not a partisan hack who would like to send him to jail because he's a republican. I have no more use for the current republicans than you do, but I'm not ready to send them to jail for being one. That seems to be the minority viewpoint at this point in time.

I think my point was pretty clear. Both men were caught doing what they clearly condemned. Rush may be an entertainer, but that doesn't diminish the power he has over some of the proud "ditto-heads" that listen to him.

This is just a supporting example or parallel of the type hypocrisy on the part of powerful people that was at least implied in Sleeper's original post. I could point to others. One of the tragedies here is that people don't learn from the mistakes of others. Foley is out of Congress, but there is another out-of-control fool somewhere who will make a similar mistake. Whether Congress, the air waves, the pulpit or the corporate office, Lord Acton's words ring true, "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

BTW: DR may I suggest that there are better ways for you to spend five hours per day?

It is events like this one with Foley that prove politicians are the biggest hypocrites on the planet. He is an adult and the people he was communicating with were minors. His actions are absolutely hideous to me and I'm guessing most other people. He was a paid public servant who was hiding under the cloak of decency and care for children. What a blatant liar. He deserves to spend the rest of his life behind bars for taking the trust of Americans and flushing it down the toilet.




Three hours a day will brainwash even the most sensible person. I suggest you stay the heck away from Fox News and Rush Limbaugh. They are nothing more than propaganda machines. If you find that entertaining you may want to look into the works of Adolf Hitler. He was quite an entertainer as well.



It has nothing to do with partisanship, though, ironically he resides on the side of politics that yells the loudest about family values.

Ugh. I listened to one political talk show over the weekend, and that was enough. The two Democratic strategists acted as if they were in a contest to see who could say "pedophile" the most times. What Foley did was wrong and despicable, an abuse of power. But it's not pedophilia. He should be, and is, out of Congress. Good riddance.

BoF and Lord Acton are correct in noting how power corrupts. When people have entire staffs of employees who are paid (taxpayer dollars) to say "yes" all day, they get used to hearing "yes." Which can give them a sort of 'above the law' feeling. Be it drunk-driving, check-kiting, even walking past the security guards into Congress. None of us would rationally think we could IM teenagers with explicit talk without consequence. But he did - must have thought he could get away with it.

Just a note of clarification. I believe I used the term pedophilia in this thread, perhaps a similar on this subject.
I have seen several people say this is not an act of pedophilia

This link has several definitions of pedophilia and one of those uses pre-pubertal as part of the definition but the others focus child or below the age of consent.

Not that there was any consent going on in this case, but I still feel the term pedophilia is applicable in this case, irrespective if there is a crime that has been committed.

It's interesting to me that Foley's lawyer is claiming that Foley is now in treatment for alcoholism.

Let's assume that's true. I don't think alcohol caused him to seek out teen boys as his sexual attraction, but a deeper need to have these relations. The alcohol would have reduced his ability to control this deeper need, and so he acted out.

Thus I'm back at my original take on this. The guy needs a lot of help through psychology, not punishment in prison. Maybe once he gets off the sauce, this will become the next step. Well, after the first twelve.

I'm torn on this one... as I really don't know the law. Are emails against the law? Albeit sickening, and if it had been my kid who knows what Foley's fate would actually be... but can someone be thrown in the clink for sending emails?

Frankly, as much as I believe that jail should be punishment and a reason that people CHOOSE NOT to do sick things like this, would it do any good? This man's family, career, and life from here on out are destroyed. Rightfully so. I think this dude should be mandated to court ordered treatment, monitored by someone (to include random computer and office searches), and under the watchful eye of someone accountable.

1. Do you believe Mark Foley should goto jail under legislation he helped get passed in congress for his sexual exploitations online?

If sufficient evidence is found, he should be prosecuted and if found guilty, punished to the fullest extent of the law.

2. If not. Why?
If he is not guilty.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now let's talk for real. First, for someone that is passionate about this issue you are awfully quick to rush to judgement and not allow the evidence to become clear. There is no question that exploitation of children is wrong. However, even without further knowledge about the facts it is obvious that there is more to this than meets the eye. Why would there be a record of IMs that are years old, or even of any age? How many people save their IM conversations, especially teenagers? If they had, why? And why is this coming to light now? And why are they piling up on Hastert? All this happening just prior to an election even though it is well known that some in Congress knew about at least a year ago raises questions. I think there should be an investigation that goes well beyond Foley, but into the Democrats about what they knew and when. Somebody knew about this all along, and I think made a political opportunity. And if so, who really cared about the sexual exploitation of children? Hmmmm? I believe is someone out there that was looking for an election scandal, and that's someone I want to know about. If the Dems are behind this it will come out, and will cost them dearly.

I’d never heard of Gerry Studds until the right side of the aisle here at AD started their “oh, yeah, but” argument. First of all, it happened in 1973 (ancient history for many here), Studds was 36 and the page was 17, the affair was consensual, and Studds admitted he was gay.

(emphasis mine)


Didn't seem to make any difference to voters who CHOSE to reelect him, knowing about the affair.

Age of consent and ethical issues; sounds like a similar situation to Foley. Conceding the age of consent issue (as much as it makes my skin crawl to do so…52 year old man, 16 year old boy-ew ), there is still an ethical issue. Gerry took his lumps and was censured. Foley denied everything until irrefutable proof came to light, and then he cried “I’m an alcoholic!”, quit and went into rehab.
(emphasis mine)
So, who is the worst offender? Both of them did something wrong; one was openly gay, admitted he had the affair, took his punishment and moved on, the other denied everything and quit.

Should Foley go to jail? Maybe not; since the age of consent seems to be the only issue that matters. But he managed to escape censure by quitting. So should he receive any punishment at all, or be allowed to get off scot-free?

Edited to add: Oops, I put this in the wrong Foley thread. Mods, could you help out? Thx

I don't think you understand... as what happened here wasn't considered non-consensual sex in that there wasn't even sex. 16 vs 17 is a small difference, and moreover the "outing" was in 1983. He was subsequently elected more than once, and no one even cared. It holds water in that this was worse, and Foley is still being beaten to death in the media... where as most people don't even know who Studds is. What does that say about the media and bias???? hmmm....

I'm not a math whiz by any means, but when he was charged in 1983 for something that happened 10 years earlier, that means it happened in 1973. Unless I'm missing some algebraic equation I'm not aware of?

No one cared because Studds was openly homosexual, the "victim" of his crime stood up with him while he was being censured, and he never lied about it happening. Foley denied anything improper happened as far back as A YEAR AGO. Why can't you see the difference of taking responsbility for one's actions as opposed to lying about it and slinking away once you've been busted?

When I read your post I was reminded about the Clinton - Lewinski affair: "How many people save a dress with a sperm stain on it?" Maybe the 16 year old thought, wow this is good stuff, maybe I can make some money off. Maybe I could write a book about it in the future! Lets save these messages just in case! Strange people are living in the good old U.S. of A. and the rest of the world. Something like this would not really be illogical, now would it? It is as plausible as a Democrat conspiracy against the Republican party.

It's common to blame the victim. Probably what happened was that Foley was completely seduced by
the teenager. That must have been some kid to turn Foley into a homosexual on top of it.

The reality is that Foley is a perverted liar. Whether or not someone was trying to set him up is a moot point because he still had to take the bait.

On top of it, he's now claiming alcoholism and priests from his past are to blame for his current behavior.
What an irresponsible loon.

Monica Lewinsky didn't save the dress for 3 years, and she idolized Clinton. Now we know that the boy was 18 years old, but keep records of IMs seems a bit unusual. I think there was more to it than a schoolboy motive. The fact that this is wrong is no longer in dispute for me, but I think there is more to this story and I think the Dems are involved up to their necks. Since when do Dems/Libs have issues with gay sex and teenage sex? They promote condoms in schools and gay marriage. No there's more here.

Wow. It was a massive liberal conspiracy, huh? Any evidence to back up that blatant accusation? Any links? And wow, because "Dems/Libs" believe a person has a right to their own sexuality, that automatically means they approve of 52-year old Congressmen involved in inappropriate sexual contact teenage boys? You're right; we have nothing against homosexuality - as far as I'm concerned, it's nobody's business but the person's. BUT, and it's a big ol' BUT, homosexuality isn't what this is about. This is about a person (who denied his homosexuality, btw) using his position of power to behave inappropriately to a boy. This is about a member of the party that abhors gays, that believes sex is dirty and nasty and shouldn't be talked about, that is all self-righteous about morals and family values, etc. etc. ad nauseum. This is about H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y.

Edited to add:
I just found this in an article in the LA Times. While Foley may not have committed a crime, he certainly violated his oath of office. He avoided censure by stepping down.

I'm assuming you had to take time out from making tin-foil hats and watching for black helicopters to fire off that particularly insightful missive.

Curses! They're on to us. Alert Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean that the righties have begun to suspect poor old Mark Foley was seduced and abandoned by one of our supple, strapping hunky young double agents whom infiltrated the ranks of the Republican-controlled page program.

I think we're wandering into the conspiracy theory portion of our show. Some conservatives are unable to fathom how a closeted, alcoholic gay man who happens to be a Republican (can such a creature exist?) could make such horrible decisions that have had a devastating impact upon him specifically and his political party generally.

It MUST be a evil Democratic scheme to entrap Foley! What other explanation could there BE???

Your ridiculous ad hominem, The Founders Intent about "Dems/Libs" demonstrates how desperately some people are trying to shift the blame for this fiasco on anyone but Mark Foley and the Keystone Cops bungling of the GOP House leadership.

When did conservatives stop believing in taking responsibility for individual actions?

There's no question that Dems are milking this story. Good for them. Finally some chickens came home to roost. However, I see absolutely no proof that Repubs didn't bring this whole mess on their heads by themselves. After all, they're the party of "traditionalism", they're the keepers of moral values, they're the "culture warriors" (never mind Bob Livingston, Newt Gingrich, and Don Sherwood). Democrats never positioned themselves this way. And the funny thing is, this story could have been laid to rest long time ago, if Hastert did the right thing, investigated one of his own when he learned about "weird" emails. Obviously he was hoping that the whole thing will blow over. Well, it didn't.

1. Do you believe Mark Foley should goto jail under legislation he helped get passed in congress for his sexual exploitations online?
Well, given the facts, it appears not. I have issues with federal laws which override local statues for things like age of consent. For example, when the feds revoked highway funds until states agreed to raise their drinking age to 21, I though that was an abuse of federal government power.

1 - The age of consent where all this took place was apparently 16.
2 - The instant messages and cyber-sex that have come to light were apparently with an 18-year-old, although ABC claims "some" of the IMs were just before his 18th birthday.

If anything could be prosecuted, it could be under employment law (harassment) but the sex online has all been described as being with "former pages." The despicable part is that he was obviously shopping for potential partners among the current pages, then contacting them after they left. As DaffyGrl notes, he violated the ethics, but he resigned so there isn't anything to pursue there.

Speaking of hypocrisy, has anyone else noticed that all of these 16-18 year-old pages are 'children' but teenage girls crossing state lines to get abortions are "young women." There is plenty of hypocrisy on both sides, seems to me.

QUOTE

Link

Also implicated in the case was Democratic Congressman Barney Frank, whose D.C. home was used as a base of operations for an escort service from late 1985 through mid 1987. The service was run by Frank's lover, Stephen L. Gobie, the son of a Marine Corps master sergeant and Pentagon budget analyst. Frank wrote a number of letters to probation officials on behalf of Gobie, who had four felony convictions from 1982. Those letters provided the necessary cover for the ring, which Frank denied having knowledge of. Gobie also regularly operated out of Chevy Chase Elementary School, in collusion with the 'magnet' school's principal, Gabriel A. Massaro, a former school counselor. The school was home to 350 students aged nine to twelve. Massaro vigorously denied that any students were involved in callboy operations, which he eventually admitted were run from the school. In addition to Barney Frank and Gabriel Massaro, Stephen Gobie had close ties to Craig Spence as well.

Now, whether all of this is true or some of this is true, the only thing that matters is that there is some truth. Frank did not conduct himself at all times in a manner which shall reflect creditably on the House of Representatives. The Democrats protected him, HYPOCRITES.

Two things here.

Firstly, it looks like there certainly should have been persecution and repercusions in that case... For Stephen Gobie, who broke the law and committed several acts both illegal and of questionable morals. Barney Frank on the other hand, apparently had the crime of choosing a bad partner (God knows I have certainly committed this crime) and denying any knowledge of the activities of his partner. What exactly is the parallel here?


Secondly, this is the lordhelmet school of desperate attack. When it is pointed out how the Republicans, or one republican in specific are morally corrupt and have serious problems, IGNORE the issue completely, and bring up 20+ year old cases where the Democrats did something similar.


There are a host of problems with this ineffective tactic. Among them, the democrats from 20+ years ago are not the democrats from today, just as the same could be said for the republicans. In addition, in this case, the parallel you are trying to draw is questionable at est.

But the BIGGEST problem with this tactic, is that it in no way defends your party. In essence, by employing this tactic, you are accepting the moral evil of the Republicans, but trying to deflect attention away from it by saying that 20 years ago, the Democrats might have been JUST AS BAD. Thats hardly a defence.



Besides, people like you and Lordhelmet who bring up the Barney Frank case forget one critical point. The Democrats may or may not have acted wrongly in protecting barney Frank in 1985 to 1987. But what I know is, the Democrats got crushed in the 1988 elections (426 out of 538 electoral college votes), immediately following the scandal.

I would be quite happy to see exactly the same standard, and exactly the same fate to the party in question, apply here.

Okay, what do you have to say about this? I'm sure you have another cliche about lord hamlet, right? You know that you liberals are the biggest hypocrites in history. You surely know it, and you openly deny it like schizophrenic asylum escapees. What's with you people? You couldn't care less about the pages, this is all about taking Congress back. It's obvious to the whole country, you're not fooling anyone. So get off it already. As the truth comes out about this being a prank, and probably much more the Dems will end up paying for this. The trouble with the Dems is that the truth is never on their side. Heard the latest on Allen, he's 11 points ahead. Hmmmm, guess the public isn't as stupid as the Dems think they are. Unfortunately for the California minded libs, Virginia is different and that dog won't hunt here. Keep showing the public who you really are, it's the best thing that could happen.