Okay, I have 3 sets of asbestos underwear on...defending Foley..?

[karlrschneider]

Sort of, that is. There's no doubt in my mind that he's a despicable turd for many reasons, not the least of which being

he's a hypocritical Repuglican, but I'm more than a little discomfited about the seeming conviction handed to him here
at DU and other places without benefit of trial. Isn't that precisely the sort of thing we are all so up in arms about
with Chimp's treatment of "enemy combatants"?

Please correct me if you find any of my comments in factual error.

So far, these points appear to be generally accepted:

1. Foley is (or was, apparently) a gay congressman (Republican)
2. He conducted an as yet unverified number of emails and/or chatroom contacts and/or instant messaging with one or
more teenage boys.
3. The language in those contacts was of a sexually suggestive nature but did not as far as we know at present
include any specific requests for personal contact.
4. Such language is common among and between persons of both genders and most all ages in such venues.
5. There is as yet no evidence that any of these communications were with pre-pubescent persons.
6. There is as yet no indication that any specific law was violated as a result of these communications.
7. We have no precise knowledge of why Foley resigned given the brevity of the released document.
8. The identity of the accuser(s?) is unknown.
9. There is, so far, no "chain of evidence" linking the purported 'chatroom' comments ('screenshots', or whatever
they are) directly to Foley.
10. I'll stop here - his resignation does indeed look like a 'smoking gun' and there may be more to come out.

And a few observations regarding those:

1. So he's gay...so what?

2. Not a smart thing to do, but he's hardly a minority of one - there are millions of 'chickenhawks' (not the war
type, the other kind...but of course some are both)...which is part of the reason there are also millions of
teenage boy hustlers - found in every city on the planet. They might be gay or not, they do what they do for
the money. It's a variation on the World's Oldest Profession.

3. I'm not sure where the line is nowadays between 'talking dirty' and 'propositioning'. Obviously
if he had written "I'll give you a free ticket and $200 to come here and have sex with me" that
would be over that line, but I don't see any such offer on the 'table', as it were.

4. Can I yell "fuck" in a crowded theater?

5. There's a lot (far too much) hollering about 'pedophiles' surrounding this nasty mess but unless he was committing
attempted diddling with a youngster PRE-PUBESCENT, the word is NOT being used correctly.

6. If it is illegal now to ask someone if I make them 'horny', the First Amendment is truly dead.

7. I believe the answer is obvious, but will entertain opinions on this one.

8. Another point we have all been hammering concerning "illegal combatant" defendants...the basic Constitutional Right to confront one's accuser.

9. Still awaiting evidence for this.

10. If Foley actually DID something illegal, fine...let's gather the evidence and put him on
trial. As I said, I'm not comfortable with descending into the same miasma of 'conviction
without trial' that we're all raising hell about with the current situation.

[Beetwasher]

1. Who Says Anything About Convicting Without A Trial?

But we shouldn't hesitate to club him over the head w/ it, and the Repubs for that matter if they covered it up.

Bottom line: it's not necessarily the emails or the language or the fact that he's gay and attracted to teen boys, it's the abuse of his position and the taking advantage of someone who was an underling. It's the hypocrisy and the cover up and it's THE POLITICALLY ASTUTE THING TO DO to USE this story any way we can. It MAY have been illegal, they MAY have been underage, or not, but this SHOULD be a huge story and we SHOULD club him AND the Repubs over the head w/ it as hard as possible and we shouldn't hesitate about it because there is NOTHING wrong w/ doing so. HE brought this on himself and so did the Repubs by covering it up and keeping him in a leadership position that allowed him to continue w/ this innapropriate (and possibly illegal) behavior. Game on.

[karlrschneider]

4. I have no problem with nabbing them for any "cover up" they did, but

that isn't what I was discussing. I've seen dozens of posts suggesting he should be shot, hanged, even tortured. You posited a lot of "MAY haves" and "SHOULDs" which is a legitimate OPINION but flies in
the face of the sort of equal and fair 'justice' we all holler so loud about.

[Beetwasher]

17. Sorry, It's NOT Just The Cover-Up, Foley's Behavior Was At LEAST

Incredibly innapropriate if not illegal and definitely ethically malignant enought that he SHOULD be out of Congress (at LEAST), so he deserves just about everything he's getting. I don't say hang him or torture him (but I wouldn't say that about pretty much anyone) and I'm sure those are very rare and possibly troll posts here, but it's certainly not nearly a majority of people here or any amount that needs to be chastised.

You are really on the wrong side of this. Foley deserve all the grief we can give him over this and for you to defend him and chastise DU over some idiotic emotinally charged comments calling for him to be hanged, is, well, pretty ridiculous.

[karlrschneider]

35. Haha well that's why the asbestos undies...

But so far nobody has really addressed my specific points. I'm happy to see the guy out of Congress.
I'm not all that gleeful about HOW it came about. Maybe I'm still too much of a hippie libertarian, I
just don't see how a little sexy-chat is a big deal. I sincerely wonder how differently the discussion would be going if he was a Democrat. (Yes, I'm deadly serious here)

[Beetwasher]

48. Yes, I Most Certainly DID Address your Specific Points

"I just don't see how a little sexy-chat is a big deal."

That's NOT the big deal. It's NOT about "sexy chat". How cavalier of you to try and make it seem so blase. And it's dishonest of you to try to dismiss this as mere "sexy chat". Context matters. If it was w/ an underage teen, it IS a big deal, even more so. We don't have all the details. But even if it's NOT an underage teen, it's still a teen and a page, and it's STILL a BIG DEAL. He ABUSED his position. Repubs COVERED it up. And frankly, it's beyond innapropriate behavior and it deserves all the attention it gets.

[karlrschneider]

54. Cavalier and blase'? Yikes. Is it cavalier and blase when the Bushco

people toss people in prison with no legal representatives or even any contact? How did he "abuse his position", exactly? This kid wasn't in his employ, he never worked for him and he was 700 miles away,
nor was he forced to carry on an extended email/slash/IM conversation with him...and for damn sure
wasn't coerced to reply "a little" when asked "do I make you horny?"....

Here, look: I'll give you $500 to sleep with me. How about it?

[razors edge]

2. if he were Innocent or only

pushing the line a little with a seventeen year old going on eighteen, he would not have resigned.

Hypocrisy is no deterrence to republican political motivation and any one who points that out is an anti-christian.

[karlrschneider]

9. That's plausible but we don't KNOW if it's true.

He may well have been ORDERED to resign by the Powers to minimize embarrassment regardless of actual
guilt. Which makes political sense, to them obviously.

[razors edge]

32. how does ordering him to resign serve the republican leadership?

they will all just forget they knew him anyway, leaving him in they can always claim they pulled all official support and have no further comment. which they will do anyway.

a resignation reverberates louder than a no comment.

edit: on further reflection, ordering him to resign, and having him do so, could show a strong respect for the rupublican leadership shared by all members of a strong party, always ready to do the right thing for the good of the party, and we have lieberman.

Damn that sucks!

:hide:

[Armstead]

3. He resigned and admitted inappropriate behavior

Normally I would agree with you.

However, unlike Allen who at least thinks he can get away with stuff, Foley basically folded as soon as it came out.

Normally, I'd say his private life is nobody's business but his own.

But since he has been in the forefront of the Right Wing Busybodies who want to intrude on everyone else's private life, it is only justice that the usual laws of decorum be suspended in his case.

Normally I'd say politics should focus on the issues. But since the right wing GOP has specialized in the politics of personal destruction and in self-righteous persecution of people, the hypocricy of its leaders IS an issue.

[karlrschneider]

16. Okay, he's a hypocrite, we agree. So why isn't that enough?

I guess I'd probably support a law against hypocrisy but how the hell would it be enforced? None of us
is immune to that moral foible. None that I know, anyway.

[Armstead]

29. I'm not talking about law -- That's for the courts to decide

I'm simply saying that there is enough evidence that he should not be given the kid gloves treatment.

I'm usually in favor of the "glass house and stones" theory.

If he were some innocuous Congressperson who wasn't a leading figure in the persecution of all who don't adhere to "traditional family values" I would say differently.

But it's important to the nation that the total hypocracy of those who are leading this nation in a dangerous direction not be spared from what they do to everyone else.

[karlrschneider]

52. But what is the evidence OF?

I don't think some here are getting my point...that the guy is definitely a slimeball for enough reasons other than this particular scenario but what illegal thing has he been accused of?

[bigtree]

5. wow. have any kids?

I raised two boys . . . I'd kick some serious ass for this type of contact with my kids. I'd worry about stripping him of his job . . . whatever was left of him after I let him loose.

[karlrschneider]

19. Would your kids continue to carry on an extended conversation

with the guy? And (no offense, please don't take it wrong)...would you know if they did?

[pnwmom]

27. Why would that be relevant?

It's okay for him to do it if he finds a kid that is vulnerable enough and stupid enough to cooperate?

[karlrschneider]

53. A 16 year old who had the moxie to become a Page in Congress

is not a vulnerable idiot. Let's stay in the realm of reality here, okay?

[pnwmom]

72. Doesn't matter how smart he is. A 58 year old man has no business

grooming a 16 year old.

[americanstranger]

85. Small correction - Foley is 52.

The '54' in his nick is his birth year.

- as

[buzzard]

50. I wouldn't know and kids online make many outrageous comments

as do adults, the anonymity of cyberspace allows many to make comments they would never make in person. While I don't approve of his actions given his position I am not sure that I would convict him on the basis of what I know at this point.

[karlrschneider]

56. Thanks, you got my point. I don't think he belongs in Congress

but I haven't seen any evidence he actually DID anything all that reprehensible.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

6. He sent them to several pages - kids who were under his "care."

[karlrschneider]

23. I understand that has been alleged. Why won't any of them divulge

their identity? It isn't as if they're in any danger NOW...?

[pnwmom]

31. You can't be serious. These are BOYS. Do you think they want to be

outed now? In front of the whole country? With these stupid, slimy emails?

Do you have any sensitivity at all?

[karlrschneider]

58. Oh, spare me the innocent victim bullshit. If they're making the

accusations, they're obligated to say who they are and produce the evidence. Or would you prefer the system proposed by Bushco...guilty until proven innocent?

[pnwmom]

67. They are minor children and the identities of minors are protected,

as they should be.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

38. Because the identity of minors are protected under the law.

The identity of scumbag congressmen isn't.

[burythehatchet]

7. Are you a parent?

[karlrschneider]

26. Biologically, not that I know of. De facto (and de jure) yes.

How and/or why is that relevant?

[yurbud]

8. two issues: hypocrisy and UNDERAGE

either by themselves is enough to make this noteworthy, given the GOP's self-appointed role as Clinton's penis police in the 90s.

[Bucky]

41. Third issue: abuse of power and trust. The kid's parents trusted Congress

My daughter has expressed an interest in applying for a Congressional page position next year. Right now I can't imagine I'd ever allow it.

[yurbud]

43. Unless my kid was butt-ass ugly and covered with open sores....

I would discourage that.

Even then I'd probably discourage it.

If she wants to go into politics, she can start local and work her way up. If she jumps right in with the big fish, she'll get eaten.

Also, I don't know what your class background is, but the upper class seem to feel restraint about having their way with the plebes so long as they don't soil their "peers" future mates.

[karlrschneider]

55. She would probably be fine working with a Democrat.

See how easy it is?

[americanstranger]

10. He owned up and quit.

I'm not pronouncing him guilty, but I will say he's done a damn fine job of doing that himself.

He can be as gay as he wants. But no kids. NO KIDS, God damn it.

The bigger question is why did the House leadership leave him in his position, if they knew about this behavior for a year?

- as

[madmusic]

60. That's what the freepers are saying.

And at the same time say it makes them better than Democrats.

Logic?

[americanstranger]

68. I'm not sure I get your drift here.

You're not equating me with Freepers, are you?

- as

[madmusic]

69. Trying to understand their logic.

It didn't make sense.

[sweetheart]

11. Hesitate and die?

A demon is cornered and you've got a shotgun levelled at the bastard thing
after it's tried to kill you and destroy the country, but a crocodile tear
still falls down its cheek, how sad.

"you're terminated mutherfucker." Sarah Conor - The terminator

That crocodile supports war crimes and torture, what human soul is left?

[acmavm]

12. What about the extremely hypocrital fact that this guy was the head

of a committee that was created to protect exploited or abused children? To me that in itself is enough to get rid of the guy. Apparently he used his position to get at the pages. Who knows what he was doing on the committee to get his jollies.

He was a master user and exploiter.

[karlrschneider]

74. Okay, what about it? He's a hypocrite, obviously. But what crime did

he commit? I'm still waiting for somebody to answer that.
:eyes:

[sam sarrha]

13. ok.. lets electro shock his genitals, water board the F'er and FIND OUT.!!

what the truth is.. Bu$h made it legal.. lets do it and get the truth.

we can get the TRUTH in less than an hour.. duct tape a funnel in his mouth, tie him to a ironing board and tilt his head down, pinch his nose shut and pour a bucket of rancid piss from a crack whore in the funnel and BINGO.!!! we got the truth..!!!

maybe there is something to this torture stuff.. quick, cheap and easy.. hell the entire Iraq war was justified on torture information from ONE man.. who gave us all the false information that justified the entire invasion..!! and it was cheap and easy.:rant:

[karlrschneider]

59. Zackly. We (?) want to do the same thing we abhor when Bush does it.

...

[savemefromdumbya]

14. people in his position should be setting a good example

chasing after pages is not, and asking them if he is horny or whatever is not. It is inapropriate. Gay doesn't mean cottaging on the internet?

[Pale Blue Dot]

15. Who says he's gay?

He's a pedophile. The terms are not interchangeable.

[pnwmom]

33. You're wrong. That word applies to attraction to pre-adolescents.

He is attracted to youthful males. He's either gay or bi.

[karlrschneider]

61. Oh, bullshit. A 16 year old isn't a prepubescent child for gods sake

he's more than old enough to father a child...or drive a 6000 pound car. Give me a fucking break.

[bowens43]

18. If it's him in the IM messages he broke the law.

He broke laws that he helped to author. Try him , convict him and send his pedophile ass to big boy prison.

"unless he was committing attempted diddling with a youngster PRE-PUBESCENT , the word is NOT being used correctly"

Bullshit. If the kid is under 18 this scum sucking asshole is a pedophile.

[kath]

57. Is talking about sex with an older adolescent a crime? Was he trying to

set up an actual in-real-life sexual contact with the boy?

Granted, what he did was inappropriate, but I'm not sure it's illegal.

Did any of the boys work for him? Or were they all pages of other Congresscritters?

[karlrschneider]

65. You are obviously ignorant of the legal definition of pedophilia

and apparently the medical/psychological one as well. Please cite the "law" he broke (or is
even accused of breaking.)

[Mnemosyne]

20. Ephebophilia and a complete lack of ethics.

Ephebophilia has been defined as a sexual preference in which an adult is primarily or exclusively sexually attracted to postpubescent adolescents.

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

[Old and In the Way]

21. There was a time I'd agree with you.

But then I think, WWARD? What would a Republican do? They'd go for the jugular. They'd only care about getting that seat. They are in control today and are in the process of dismantling our Constitution and destroying our economic/social Commonwealth.

I make no presumption to know if Foley is guilty or not. He resigned mighty fast, so I suspect that there's a hell of a lot more that's going to come out. Republicans wouldn't give up that seat (which they had locked up) based on what information I've seen released.

No, I guess I've lost my sense of fair play. Or maybe I'm willing to go Republican on Foley if it means getting the majority back. Given Foley's role in Clinton's impeachment and the 2000 Selection, I won't lose any sleep making Foley the face of the Republican Party.

[EST]

22. Asbestos underwear?

Maybe something more substantial could be advised.

Children under the age of majority are a special class and the protections afforded under the constitution to adults are not always applicable to younger folks.

The "evidence" against Mr. Foley is rather tenuous and fragmentary but the fact of his resignation informs many of us that either these charges are, indeed, factual and deadly serious or the investigation of these particular allegations is likely to turn up even more perfidy and evidence of lack of mature, adult judgment.

My final point is that jumping to conclusions is all the exercise some of us get on a regular basis and the sheer glee that we experience at the further unmasking of these mobile garbage heaps is sometimes the only joy available at a price we can afford during this sorry time in American history.

[karlrschneider]

63. Fine. If there is more perfidy to be found, let's find it. But MEANWHILE

I find the willingness to virtually convict the guy (who I despise for many other reasons) an affront
to the principles of American Justice many DUers lay claim to but willingly abandon when the accused
happens to be Republican. I thought we were better than that.

[EST]

79. Actually, it is the sin of hypocrisy that we are,

for the most part, convicting him of, hypocrisy rarely seen on so grand a scale that it has even made the publiclowns disavow him.

Most of the replies to the OP are tongue in cheek, as I'm sure you noticed, as was mine. Of course we are scandalized, justifiably so, and we all get together and rap about it, as we are doing here.

My goal in life is not necessarily defending the DU denizens, since I discovered long ago that although there may be, here and there, a bit of "hang 'em high" mentality, I have yet to meet a single one of us who, on reflection, would actually encourage some of the actions advocated or intellectual leaps promulgated.

And that's one of the essential differences between here and, say, freeperville: those poor folks are serious from the git-go and haven't the capacity to re-think their conclusions pragmatically and humanely.

[karlrschneider]

86. Thank you, for distilling my comments to their essence.

My tendency to excessive verbosity often occludes the point I intend to make (this probably being an
example) - and of course you're right...we DUers are at times goofy, crazy or confused but we are never ever wrong. :D

[Historic NY]

24. Apparently they are now admitting he was told to stay

away and refrain from contact with teenage boy pages last year. Make no mistake about this the Republican Congressional Leadership was fully aware of Foley's conduct. Foley was warned and as said decided to continue to communicate with these boys.

<snip>
Six hours after Foley's resignation letter was read to the House by a clerk, the chairman of a panel that oversees the page program issued a one-page written statement that deflected any blame from House leaders.

The statement from Rep. John Shimkus, R-Ill., said the House Page Board he chairs investigated the allegations late last year, but Foley "was not honest" when he denied any improper conduct with the teenager.

<snip>
Foley was ordered to cease all contact with the former page and assured Shimkus he would do so, the statement said. He also was advised to watch his conduct with current and former House pages, and gave assurance he would do so, Shimkus said.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/09/29/national/w123452D40.DTL&type=politics

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/09/house-gop-leadership-knew-about-foley.html

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Congressman_accused_of_sending_sick_emails_0928.html

http://abcnews.go.com/images/WNT/02-02-03b.pdf

[pnwmom]

25. This is a clear case of "Do unto others"

as they would certainly do unto you.

Pretend Foley was a Democrat. What would the Republicans do?

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

28. Who was out in front of this story?

Shaking it like a terrier shakes a rat?

John Aravosis. Openly gay man. Democrat. Americablog.

John gets it.

[americanstranger]

44. Well put, TS.

I'm glad John is on it.

He has the juice to carry this to the corporate media's doorstep.

- as

[tularetom]

30. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt but

it's the fuckin hypocrisy that pisses off most people. while he spouts off about protecting kids from online predators he's online talking suggestively to kids. Yes he deserves the presumption of innocence if in fact what he admits he did is criminal, but the admission and his subsequent hasty retreat suggest that he at least realized that his actions were at best questionable. There is a strong element of schadenfreude in most Dem's reaction to this incident (including me - I'm enjoying the airing of the hypocrisy) but this is (for now at least) still America and Mr. foley is innocent until proven guilty.

[Viking12]

34. You did not just compare DU to Gitmo?

Did you? WTF?

You do know that "gay" and "pedophile" aren't interchangeable as the RWingnuts assert, right?

[katsy]

36. Who cares if he's gay?

Not me.

Can't say I like internet predators though.

For years we were clubbed with blowjobs and monica. They called her a child. She was not. They called Clinton a rapist. He was not.

But the crux of the matter is Hypocrisy. That's the word of the day. Hypocrits, internet predators, murderers, liars, thieves, torturers, corporatists, elitists, criminals, drunks, warmongerers, war profiteers... that's what they are. That defines pukes.

Let our representatives turn the other cheek.

Not me. I'll smear them in any way, in every conversation, on every blog and without any conscience. Uh uh. I'll make shit up to turn around even one puke voter. I have no qualms about smearing them. By the way, I think the that's women's panties Hastert wears under his pants... can't you see the ridges of lace?

:patriot: :evilgrin:

[pnwmom]

71. Monica was 24, an adult. These boys are only 16.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

37. Sorry, but he made a mistake and he should pay big time.

He still gets his trial, but I think it's pretty damn sick that you're defending him. Did you read the emails? The entire IM? Definitely not behavior fitting a congressman, or the local convenience store worker, for that matter. God. I can't believe someone is even trying to defend this fuck.

[karlrschneider]

70. I am defending his right to say the same sort of things that appear here

on DU regularly...and/or in thousands of other internet venues. Until somebody shows me verifiable
evidence that he explicitly engaged in or solicited illegal activities, I'm loathe to convict him
(even virtually) of ...anything. It isn't (yet, as far as I know) illegal to "talk dirty" to others.
If it is, we might as well have Skinner shut down DU ... and the internets too.

We go to great lengths to support the rights of accused "illegal combatants" imprisoned by Bushco,
and rightly so, but somehow when it's 'convenient', we're ready to deny them to a Republican.
I find that repugnant.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

84. Since when do people have conversations with minors about their

penis size and masturbation habits on DU? I must have missed those threads.

:eyes:

[Bucky]

39. I get where you're coming from. But there's (1) the hypocricy and (2) ...

it's just plain wrong. It's categorically immoral for a 40-50 man in a position of power, trust, and authority to use his position to lure a teenager toward a sexual relationship. That, by the way, is exactly what he was doing... luring in a minor toward sexual exploitation. The fact is that he was caught and exposed before he got to actually commit a crime. So be it: he won't be charged with statuatory rape.

I wouldn't feel any different if we found out that Foley was casing a bank and planning out a heist. If we found him with bank vault blueprints, safe cracking equipment, blackout clothing, and driving in a van toward a bank he'd been investigating through his official duties in Congress. He hasn't broken into the bank yet, so he can't be charged with a crime. But the circumstances and intentions are entirely clear and are certainly a fitting topic for public and political debate.

It's a question of character. It's a question of the safe community that Congress owes to the young interns it brings to Washington under the promise of appropriate supervision. What he did was wrong and what he was planning was wronger---not because it was sex but because it was exploitative and was premised by his holding of power and using that power for his personal gratification against the objective interests of a child.

[fed-up]

47. my thoughts exactly, I'd be just as livid if it was a 52 YO woman IMing a

16 YO male.

The Republican Leadership has betrayed our nation's youth. Parents send their kids off to Washington for the work experience, NOT for a sexual experience.

No one has mentioned that the teenager was also financially dependent.

[karlrschneider]

73. Well, fortunately for us, you aren't a judge...I imagine.

Your little scenario looks alarmingly like (although a bit more circumstancial) what we were told
by Bushco about Saddam's WMD program. I guess you like that pre-emptive action. Maybe we should just
lock up everyone in the country since they might be planning to commit a crime. Got it.

[Dem2theMax]

76. Fortunately for the kids involved, neither are you. nt.

[walldude]

40. Read this then get back to me

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2854462

The guy is a piece of shit.

[karlrschneider]

77. I read it. Again. And again. It's a fucking chatroom

and it's so tame compared with what usually goes on in those places, it's laughable. Jesusfuckingchrist, we DUers go on about how 'worldly' we are and then take offense at regular typical
internet doings? Have you ever looked at the post in the DU Lounge? If you think there's a 16 year old male in the USA who isn't very conversant with every conceivable aspect of sex in any possible combination, you're WAY out of touch with reality. I mean, hey...wake up.

[americanstranger]

83. If the 16 year old was talking sex with another 16 year old, okay.

Foley is 52. And a Congressman.

And supposedly a big defender of exploited kids.

He's admitted that he did it. I don't see where that merits any type of defense, except maybe by his legal counsel.

- as

[leesa]

42. The kid was an aide wasn't he? It's a work ethics issue as well.

It was done during work time? Come on...could you behave like this on the job?

[blitzen]

45. I think you're wrong about the language....

have you read the whole pdf file on abc.com?...the part where Foley says he wants to "grab" the guy's "one-eyed snake".....I think, but am not sure, that such talk might violate some of the new internet predator laws....

[karlrschneider]

80. If it violates the "new laws", we are all in deep shit.

WTF is with DUers who've become Puritan prudes all of a sudden here?

[H2O Man]

46. His behaviors are what

are known as the "grooming" of a potential victim. He was attempting to groom a minor for his own sexual satisfaction. It is a pretty clear betrayal of his position as a congressman.

In running groups for sex offenders, one of the most common things one encounters is the offender focuses on the victim's behavior. In this case, there is a reason why the vast majority of people are focused on the congressman's predatory behaviors, rather than on the idea that the kid corresponded with him. Part of a civilized society is demanding that we not blame victims. We should focus on the offender.

As citizens, we have no obligation to not conclude that the congressman has done something wrong, and very likely is guilty of a crime. The idea of "innocent until proven guilty" is a legal concept that applies inside a courtroom. Were we called as jurors, the judge and both sets of attorneys would be obligated to try to make sure that our thoughts on the case would not keep us from being able to keep an open mind. More, the judge and attorneys are responsible for the process of the trial.

Our position cannot accurately be compared to that of the president. An obvious example is found with President Nixon being quoted in an LA newspaper during the Manson trial. The headlines stating "Manson Guilty" could have caused a mistrial, because of the influence a president can have. The opinions expressed on DU do not share that level of influence.

[Stardust]

49. KS, you are a party pooper!

[karlrschneider]

81. No WAY! I'm a party provider!

I just think it's funny...no wrong word...sad - that so many DUers get their panties in a wad worrying
about a kid old enough to drive who carried on an extended conversation with a horny old guy, whether for shits & giggles or to set him up. Yeah, Foley's a shit in most ways, but these teenybopper kids who keep up with the emails or IMs have an agenda of their own too. They aren't spending time replying
to guys like Mark because they're bored.

[LSK]

51. He stepped down

Notice the recent trend of Republicans to deny guilt until conviction or indictment (Ney, Delay). He must be really guilty if hes resigning at this stage of the game.

[zonkers]

78. Exactly.

[TreasonousBastard]

62. I agreed with everything you said until...

I read that IM session where he's talking to a high school kid about jerking off.

Assuming that's real, it is highly inappropriate behaviour, to say the least. Certainly not part of the stated Republican "family values" plan. Haven't heard if he actually hooked up with any kids, but talking dirty to them like that is unacceptable in itself.

No, he is not a pedophile, which is something completely different. Pedophiles suffer from an attraction to the innocence of the prepubescence and are genuinely diseased. Robbing the cradle of potentially sexually active kids is more in the "sick fuck" category of mental wierdness, if not necessarily actual illness. And, it's illegal according to whatever random "age of consent" is in effect.

I don't know if I would agree with crucifying anyone over a lack of judgment here and there, but this guy apparently does this habitually, and there is the question of his responsibility to the kids, not only as an adult, but as an adult who is their boss in a way and therefore is held to an even higher standard. Any adult in a position of authority over a kid should not even joke about these things. They are in his charge, and he has the reponsibility to protect them and instruct them in proper behaviour, not join in the jollies.

After all is said and done, gleefully celebrating the schadenfreude of a fall like this isn't really a proper display either, since it is a sad thing all around, but this guy does have to be taken down.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

64. A big factor is that he's a REPUBLICAN. The tolerance for "gay",

especially UNCLOSETED gay, is not exactly there, eh?

That's why people like David Brock essentially had his career as a Right Wing sleaze merchant ended once he was outed. Even though no one would come out and say it to his face, his Republican buddies just didn't feel comfortable hanging with him anymore.

The fact that the guy resigned, with a statement about being sorry about letting everyone down etc. is pretty much a concession ON HIS PART of guilt or malfeasance. So if the conditions on HIS SIDE of the political fence make it necessary for him to leave in disgrace, what's the point of your defending him?

You can't be a Republican, gay, out, and have a bunch of AOL chat logs with you talking about people's boners and packages and "spanking it" and wanting to take off their clothes in the papers. You will lose about 80 percent of any possible voters, even if there is no crime.

The other thing is, the fact that the teens were interns amounts to abuse of his power position over them. That's one of the reasons why Clinton/Lewinsky was not, IMHO, strictly speaking just a consensual sex issue. Because she was a subordinate, it was wrong for that reason, even more than because it was adultery, in the White House, etc.

[Catherine Vincent]

66. I'm reading all the steamy details of the im's on americablog

Dahyum!

[babylonsister]

75. I'm glad you are protected!

As I've said before, a grown man shouldn't be communicating with a young one this way. I don't know, but I imagine if someone has an urge for anything, it's available. Odd, now the internet is the enemy! Too much information!
This grown man thought he was above us peons, meaning he didn't think he'd get caught?
Oh, that's right, he's known about it for a year.
Oye. Can I feel sorry for a potential pedophile?

[canetoad]

82. For what it's worth karlschneider

Agree completely with you. It's tragic to see people turning into what they profess to hate.

[maddezmom]

87. locking

flamebait