Rep.Foley

[Sonny]

Pelosi? Are you kidding? She would have been all over this incident the second it happened. You can accuse Clinton of obstruction of justice, but his act, while immoral in the sense that he cheated on his wife, is not a punishable offense! Having sex or attempting to set up a sexual encounter is! There is a distinction and to not recognize that is foolhardy at best.

Pelosi would only be all over it because it happened on the other side of the aisle. I think we all realize that the left is going to make this a huge political issue only 5 weeks out from the Nov. elections. If it happened on their side of the aisle, I don't think that Pelosi would be "all over the incident."

Cheating on your wife is not a punishable offense. Lying under oath & obstruction of justice is. There is a distinction there.

[StrykerFSU]

You're disappointed in the excuse given by a man like this? Would a statement of contrition somehow alleviate his guilt or lessen that harm he has done? I don't care what he blames it on, the man is rightfully out of Congress and should be prosecuted if he violated the law (I only say if because I don't know the laws regarding correspondence of a sexual nature).

Peterwho summed up my feelings about this scandal quite well, there is hypocrisy on both sides of the aisle.

[sohotrightnow]

Sonny you didn't read my post. All you did was look and see that I was making a distinction between Foley and Clinton and you immediately responded. Please read my post. In the first line I say Clinton can be accused of obstruction of justice. I don't see the point you are trying to make.

[Adam Gamradt]

Oh, and I like Sonny's claim that Pelosi would ignore this matter if it were a Democrat accussed of this. Where's the proof of that?

Just toss it back the other way Sonny, just toss it back. Maybe it'll stick, but at least it will distract from the real issue.

Do you get Merit Points for Karl Roves Kids Klub everytime you make a ridiculous argument based on nothing but conjecture?

[Sonny]

Oh, and I like Sonny's claim that Pelosi would ignore this matter if it were a Democrat accussed of this. Where's the proof of that?

Just toss it back the other way Sonny, just toss it back. Maybe it'll stick, but at least it will distract from the real issue.

Do you get Merit Points for Karl Roves Kids Klub everytime you make a ridiculous argument based on nothing but conjecture?

Dude, if you wish to participate in this forum - You need to lose the chip off your shoulder and not make this personal, OK?

The reason I think that is due to past history. When this happened previously with Demoratic Reps Studds and Franks?

In 1983, then-Democratic Rep. Gerry Studds of Massachusetts was caught in a similar situation. In his case, Studds had sex with a male teenage page -- something Foley hasn't been charged with.

Did Studds express contrition? Resign? Quite the contrary. He rejected Congress' censure of him and continued to represent his district until his retirement in 1996.

In 1989, Rep. Barney Frank (news, bio, voting record), also of Massachusetts, admitted he'd lived with Steve Gobie, a male prostitute who ran a gay sex-for-hire ring out of Frank's apartment. Frank, it was later discovered, used his position to fix 33 parking tickets for Gobie.

What happened to Frank? The House voted 408-18 to reprimand him -- a slap on the wrist. Today he's an honored Democratic member of Congress, much in demand as a speaker and "conscience of the party."

LINK:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ibd/20061002/bs ... 02issues01

[OAKS]

To make excuses for any of them (oh, but she was an adult), is to slide down the slippery slope.

The difference between sexual relationships (even simply attempted) with a consenting adult and those with a child is not a slippery slope. It is a huge cliff which some people need to be thrown off of.

[Tim Whitehead]

A couple of things you didn't mention, Sonny. The kid Studds had sex with was 17, which was the age of consent. Was what he did immoral? I think so. But it wasn't illegal. You also didn't mention that Republican congressman Dan Crane also got in trouble for having sex with a 17 year old at the same time. He didn't resign either. He just got defeated in his re-election attempt.

[peterwho]

It sounds like I live (and work) in a different world than many of you.

Where I work, if you engage in ANY kind of "relationship" with a subordinate, or worse - an intern, you are fired and open to prosecution under the sexual harassment statutes.

The issue is positional authority. From where I sit, the President of the United States (arguably, the most powerful position in the world), is the last person who should have a "relationship" with any government employee, let alone an intern. Members of Congress, run a close second.

The point is that this behavior should always be considered wrong.

If one party covers up or attempts to excuse the behavior - they must be held accountable.

If the other party knows about this behavior and "chooses" to expose (pun intended) the behavior at the most politically opportune time - they must be held equally accountable.

As I have said before, I'm tired of the state of our government: An uninspired majority party and an opposition party that offers only criticism.

We should expect more from our "leaders".

[Campbell]

well said peter.

I was disappointed that 60% of the Washington Post article was all about how this is going to help the Democrats in the election. It is sad when we have an article about a congressman having inappropriate relations with a minor and it turns into a discussion of the win-win situation for the Democratic party.

[Sonny]

A couple of things you didn't mention, Sonny. The kid Studds had sex with was 17, which was the age of consent. Was what he did immoral? I think so. But it wasn't illegal.

Apparently it was illegal due to consent laws....

Studds is remembered chiefly for his role in the 1983 Congressional page sex scandal, when he and Representative Dan Crane were censured by the House of Representatives for separate sexual relationships with a minor – in Studds's case, a 1973 relationship with a 17-year-old male congressional page. The relationship was consensual, but violated age of consent laws and presented ethical concerns relating to working relationships with subordinates.

LINK:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerry_Studds

You also didn't mention that Republican congressman Dan Crane also got in trouble for having sex with a 17 year old at the same time. He didn't resign either. He just got defeated in his re-election attempt.

He may have run for reelection but he certainly pled guilty to the charge. Unlike some others...

After his 1982 re-election, Crane was charged with having a sexual relationship in 1980 with an underage female congressional page and was censured by the House in 1983. Crane plead guilty to the charge and issued profuse, tearful apologies. He was defeated for re-election in 1984.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Crane

[Tim Whitehead]

Ah, Wikipedia. Such a useful, always infallible source.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Congr ... ex_scandal

Here it says that Stubbs a) pled guilty, and b) didn't violate age of consent laws.

On July 14, 1983 the House Ethics Committee concluded that Rep. Dan Crane (R-Ill.) and Rep. Gerry Studds (D-Mass.) had engaged in sexual relationships with minors, specifically 17-year-old congressional pages. In Crane's case, it was a 1980 relationship with a female page and in Studds's case, it was a 1973 relationship with a male page. Both representatives immediately pleaded guilty to the charges and the committee decided to simply reprimand the two.

Studds, however, stood by the facts of the case and refused to apologize for his behavior, and even turned his back and ignored the censure being read to him. He called a press conference with the former page, in which both stated that the young man, who was 17, consented. Studds had taken the adolescent to Morocco to engage in sexual activity, and therefore did not break any U.S. laws in what he called a "private relationship."

Have a look at this Time Magazine article, and you'll see that Crane's and Studds' reactions weren't all that different. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... 90,00.html

I especially enjoyed this quote:

On Saturday, Crane said he would not resign. His press secretary, William Mencarow, suggested the entire matter was no big deal. "If we required the resignation of all Congressmen who slept with young ladies," he said, "we wouldn't have a Congress." He later apologized for the observation.

[Sonny]

Wikipedia isn't infallable. But there is a somewhat meaningful difference between the two cases, IMHO.

[Tim Whitehead]

Between Studds and Crane? I don't think so, but we can agree to disagree.

Let's talk about this, though. What are your thoughts on the fact the Republicans in the house that knew about Foley's actions, and instead of moving to have him punished, instead were more concerned about a) covering it up, and b) avoiding a scandal?

[ZagGrad]

Probably more concerned about covering it up until after the first week of November. Afterwards, they could take care of Foley. By doing so, they single out one individual and not put the whole GOP at risk before elections...like they're doing now.

[StrykerFSU]

Rep. Dennis Hastert, the man in charge of the House of Representatives, is defending his office's handling of questions raised about Rep. Mark Foley last year, saying the parents of a male former page were bothered by an e-mail Foley sent their son but did not want the matter pursued.

Hastert said neither he nor other Republican leaders were aware until last Friday of far more lurid computer exchanges two years earlier between the Florida Republican and another page.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/10/03/america/NA_GEN_US_Congressman_Resigns.php

Meanwhile, Florida newspapers — who were leaked copies of the e-mail with the Louisiana boy last year — defended their decision not to run stories. Both The St. Petersburg Times and The Miami Herald were given copies of the e-mail, as were other news organizations, including Fox News.

"Our decision at the time was ... that because the language was not sexually explicit and was subject to interpretation, from innocuous to 'sick,' as the page characterized it, to be cautious," said Tom Fiedler, executive editor of the Herald. "Given the potentially devastating impact that a false suggestion of pedophilia could have on anyone, not to mention a congressman known to be gay, and lacking any corroborating information, we chose not to do a story."