Republican Congressman Sends Sex Messages to Underage Boys

Studds' actions were also both consentual and legal according to that article. The "scandal" there was basically that he was gay. Do you think an unmarried congressman consentually dating a female staffer would be news?

in Studds's case, a 1973 relationship with a 17-year-old male congressional page who was of the age of legal consent. The relationship was consensual, though very unprofessional of a politician, presenting ethical concerns relating to working relationships with subordinates."


The "scandal" was that it was unprofessional (or actually, that he was gay in a time when that was far less acceptable). The Foley scandal is that it was illegal. And that the Republican leadership may have tried to cover it up. Do you really not see a difference?

 

Quite a leap of faith there since Studds was censured 10 years after the fact.

Support is support.

Neither did Studds. He had to get caught and be censured and then re-elected. He never resigned. Was seducing a 17YO intern much more accepted in 1983 than it is now? No.

The former needs to be substantiated by some facts; the latter is under review.

 

Yes, I see the difference: in today's climate sending electronic messages is worse than actually having sex with someone who is the age of consent.

 

It appears that defending a Republican by dredging up past Democratic scandals is more important than what Republicans in office have done now, their record, their repeated failures, and in Foley's case, stalking young congressional pages while having his behavior covered up by the highest Republican House leadership.

Wow, giddy. You ain't lookin' too good here, bro. Should I start dredging up Watergate? I could, you know. I could bring up Watergate everytime someone like you attempts to defend Foley and the House Leadership for this incredible scandal. Why not? After all, to some of you, Foley is Clinton's fault. North Korea is Clinton's fault. Iraq is Clinton's fault. Record deficits are Clinton's fault. Record trade deficits are Clinton's fault. Record low taxes on the rich? I'm sure you could find a way to blame Clinton for that, somehow. Or a Democratic Congressman from over 20 years ago for GOP scandals of today.

How about the Republican Party taking responsibility, for once, for what is happening today? Their bankrupt foreign policy of today? Their bankrupting of my childrens future with this incredible increase in the national debt today? The pulling out of major forces from Afghanistan and putting them into an unnecessary war in Iraq that is killing and maiming thousands of our fine soldiers today? The fact that it was based on dishonesty from this Administration, this President, this Secretary of Defense, which has put us in this nightmare of Iraq today? While today, bin-Laden and his gang still runs amok, and Iraq is cranking out more terrorists, not less, today?

One could go on at length, but I'll give it a rest, for now. Really, when are some of you going to wake up to the fact that the Republican Party has become the party of "EVERYTHING is everyone else's fault." It has become the party of unaccountability, and some of you are simply enablers. Wake up and smell the coffee, if you can get past the stench of the GOP leadership and this Republican Administration.




Keep D&D Civil.

 

He was censured as soon it was known what he did. That is far different than what happened with Foley. It was known what Foley did, and it was covered up for years by the GOP leadership.

Yes support is support. But support by people outside of party leadership in no way reflects poorly of the party. So there is a huge difference.

Studds didn't break the law, he didn't stalk underage paiges. Giddy, nobody is defending what Studds did. However, it isn't near the same as what has happened with Foley and the cover-up. What Studds did was wrong. He was censured by congress including people in his own party who did not make an attempt to cover up and hide what Studds did.

What STudds did was with 1 paige, and was not an ongoing pattern of predatory behavior that was covered up by his own party.

The facts on the Studds case came out long ago and there was no cover-up. You are acting like there was, and not one person has shown any evidence at all of a cover-up. We have evidence testimony by the key players themselves that GOP leadership covered up for Foley.

The former has already been gone over, and the latter already has people involved confirming exactly what I typed.

Finally what does STudds have to do with anything?

Does the fact that Studds had a consentual affair with a legal aged staffer change that Foley repeatedly used the internet to prey on underage paiges?

Is the fact that the GOP leadership covered up and took no action even though they knew about Foley's misdeeds changed by anything that happened regarding the Studds affiar?

Trying to make someone else dirty doesn't make you clean.

 

Do you disagree with laws that make it crimes for sexual pedophiles and criminals to use the internet to prey on underage people?

 

Stalking is also a crime. Has Foley been charged with that too? I'm not even the one who brought Studds into this, but there are many similarities and many differences in the cases.

I don't think I"ve "defended" Foley; I've said numerous times that he should be out for his offenses. I do think that some perspective is in order. Studds did what Foley wanted to do and in an ironic twist of fate Foley is the worse villain because we are more concerned about the issue in this age. That is a silly disparity.

What does Clinton have to do with this?

They should. Bin Laden running amok? I heard that he has mold growing in his beard from all that cave-living...

I think the tussle for responsibility is an outgrowth of the media age that we live in with sound bites and video clips used to distort reality. One can't afford to own up to ANYTHING without having it magnified by the media.

 

No, but Foley has not proven to be a pedophile. How old were the pages? They were the same age as Studd's LOVER for God's sake....

 

Anyone else find it mildly quizzical that Studds died, causing his story to pop up all over the news, at precisely this point?

 

At least one was younger

 

Having internet sex with underage teens doesn't qualify as a pedofile?

 

16 right? Isn't that still above the age of consent? Why this misdirection?

If Foley had sex with a 15 YO or a 12 YO just come out and say it. All these vague references to "underage" kids is ridiculous.

What Foley did was illegal, ironically, by his own hand but based on what we know he did, he didn't cross the line that others have.... yet he is the scourge while the other guy is viewed as courageous.

Do you not find that odd?

 

16 was not the age of the consent, and as far as the internet goes it is 18 for that kind of material.

 

again it doesn't matter what the other guy did. That was 20 years ago. This goes beyond just what Foley did. This goes into why the GOP leadership allowed it to continue for so long.

What Foley did was use the internet to prey on underage staff members some of whom did not appreciate it. What Studds did was engage in an unprofessional affair with a consenting person who was of age.

It isn't just that Foley made a mistake. IT was that he was allowed to make it over and over with knowledge of GOP leadership that it was a problem.

 

Studds was a pedophile.

Foley is a pedophile, as well.

Just because one had sex and the other didn't doesn't mean one is a pedo and the other is not. Are the people caught on MSNBC's pedophile stings not pedophiles because they never engaged in sex with a minor?

 

What exactly is the definition of "pedophile"? Can somebody tell me?

I need to know because if finding 16-year-olds attractive falls under the definition of pedophile, then I've been a pedophile since age 13 or so.

 

giddy i dont think i've ever agreed with you. but i agree with this pretty much completely. frankly the entire world's age of consent is around 16. and just becuase we're prudeish about these things doesn't mean we should make one year the difference between illegal/immoral/cardinal sin and legal and who cares.

yes using the inter state commerce clause to stretch to IMs is exactly what the constitution intended. but doing something on the internet requiring the age of consent to be 18 and doing worse in 'real life' being 17 is absurd. and to repeatedly point out the 'legality' of the technicality is simply political opportunism.

american politics needs to learn a lot from europe. the obsession with sex scandals is ridiculous. i dont care waht clinton did. and frankly i dont care about foley. its incredibly sad for me, as a democrat, to realize that if we win back congress its more because of foley and abramoff than iraq and patriot act. its actually sickening.

sorry. i had to get that off my chest.

 

They are luring those perverts on Dateline with the promise of 12 to 13 YO girls.

Somebody 17 or 18 or even 16 I think is, generally speaking, the age of consent.

Foley got caught in the irony of a law that he helped to draw up which made his electronic contacts illegal while Studds' (what a name!) actual physical contacts with pages were not illegal. That's some weird **** there.