OK, Now I Understand How Republicans Were Supposed To Handle Foley

[Pa(b)st Prime]

It's hard for the Democrat's to not look duplicitous on these issues. After all Foley resigned over a non-sex act (in fact it's not even clear if he violated the law) while Democrat Rep. Gerry Studds was living with a page who was a minor. Studd's suffered so little rebuke that 99.9% of American's don't even know who he was.

Much the same way the Democrat's over the top indignation over Clarence Thomas, John Tower and Bob Packwood ultimately created the climate leading to Clinton's impeachment. In the late 80's a pubic hair on a Coke can was deplorable but a decade later a sitting President being sued in a harassment case was "just sex." It's not so much about throwing stones as it is about eating cake.....

 

[james_bond_3rd]

Quote from Pa(b)st Prime:

Generally the rule of thumb is the law is applicable to where the internet activity originates. i.e. gambling is legal in Costa Rica or Vegas but I can't legally phone a bet to there from D.C.

I believe the age of consent most anywhere is 16 at a maximum.

What does "maximum" mean? Here is the list of age of consent of various states:
http://www.actwin.com/eatonohio/gay/consent.htm
In Louisiana, where the page was from, the age of consent is 17.

 

[Pa(b)st Prime]

You're being shallow as usual. Foley doesn't work for the Republican Party. He's elected. It would be like Tiger Woods approaching another golfer and saying, "hey knock it off, you're giving the PGA a bad name". That's as much leverage as Hastert or anyone else has over another Congressman. Hell Pelosi can't get 20-30 House Dems to vote her way on matters of national importance. Do you think you're going to strong arm someone to abandon compulsive behavior? If Hastert had outed Foley, who was pretty out of the closet anyway, would it not looked as if the GOP was gay bashing?

If Foley was a Democrat in a liberal district it would be a non-story. For starters, he would've needed to resign. However conservative voters won't stand for Foley's shit. Guy's like you would.

Quote from dddooo:

What part of "republican cover-up" does not Coulter understand?

What part of "the party of Bob Livingston, Newt Gingrich and Mark Foley is not the party of moral values" don't republicans understand? And no the dems are not the party of moral values either... but unlike republicans they've never claimed to be.

 

[Pa(b)st Prime]

Quote from james_bond_3rd:

What does "maximum" mean? Here is the list of age of consent of various states:
http://www.actwin.com/eatonohio/gay/consent.htm
In Louisiana, where the page was from, the age of consent is 17.

That's old data. 30 states have had their age of consent laws either repealed or struck down.

Of the 20 left, yes you're right, at least a handful are at 18 for male-male (including California) but weirdly a few of the 18's for homo are only 16 for hetero! (Nev., NH, WV)

 

[pattersb]

Quote from james_bond_3rd:

How many of those who signed the contract kept their words? If it were a real "contract," I'm sure the other side would be demanding refunds by now.

And in what regard is Foley a Democrat? So do you think the Fox depiction of "Foley (D-FL)" was accurate?

The more relevant question is, "How many of those who signed the contract were elected?"

I'm sure even you wouldn't go so far as to say the Democrats are making the most of this campaign season. A significant voting issue for the republican base is gay-marriage. If anything this "gay-pedophile" scandal and supposed coverup reminds conservatives of this, relieving Republicans of the need to dredge it back up.

The problem with the democrats is their tolerance. They tolerate everything Non-Republican. So they end-up with a complete and utter hodge-podge of political agendas that are impossible to forge into anything resembling a cohesive platform.

For example, I'm certain there are a number of Democratic congressmen that are in favor of Slavery reparations ... I'm certain there are NO Republicans.

Not to mention, the new puzzle, Are Liberals Gay Bashers?

 

[CaptainObvious]

"The problem with the democrats is their tolerance. They tolerate everything Non-Republican. So they end-up with a complete and utter hodge-podge of political agendas that are impossible to forge into anything resembling a cohesive platform".

Right on the F'N money!

 

[dddooo]

Quote from Pa(b)st Prime:

If Hastert had outed Foley, who was pretty out of the closet anyway, would it not looked as if the GOP was gay bashing?

You must be joking, right? 50 year old Foley was hitting on 16 year old boys and Hastert knew. Foley's behavior was highly immoral (even if legal) by any imaginable standard. Hastert should have outed Foley REGARDLESS of what it would have looked like, don't you think? It was his civic, moral and professional responsibility and failing to do it consituted an absolutely clear case of cover-up. Where are republican moral values when you need them?

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

Quote from dddooo:

You must be joking, right? 50 year old Foley was hitting on 16 year old boys and Hastert knew. Foley's behavior was highly immoral (even if legal) by any imaginable standard. Hastert should have outed Foley REGARDLESS of what it would have looked like, don't you think? It was his civic, moral and professional responsibility and failing to do it consituted an absolutely clear case of cover-up. Where are republican moral values when you need them?

If you were Hastert, how exactly would you have gone about this? Pabst makes a very good point. Hastert cannot tell these Members what to do, he can only encourage them. The only leverage they had with the guy was his Committee Chairmanship, and believe me, no one was lining up to take over that committee. He was doing them a favor by spending his time on it. Everyone wants to be on one of the visible committees, like Judicial, or one that is concerned with either spending money, ie Appropriations, or regulating a rich industry, ie Banking.

My guess is Hastert and others told Foley to knock it off, he assured them he would and they thought that was the end of it until this thing blew up. I fault Hastert for not being more hands on, as any idiot could see this would be political dynamite. For that, he undoubtedly will have to walk the plank after the election. The fact remains that no laws were broken, Foley had no sexual contact with pages and the only sex he did have was with an adult former page. Clinton would brush off that kind of thing without breaking stride, but when it's a republican, different rules apply.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

For Democrats the tricky part of keeping this scandal alive is they need to emphasize the homosexual part of it, because they know the republican base is very uncomfortable with that. At the same time, they can't just come right out and say, you were crazy to let a homo interact with boys, although apparently Democrat hitman Bob Beckel said something to that effect. So they insinuate that but when challenged, they say republicans are trying to confuse pedophilia with homosexuality. Basically, this was a sexual harrassment or hostile work environment type of case, but that doesn't have the political destructiveness that a charge of child abuse does.

 

[Pa(b)st Prime]

Quote from dddooo:

You must be joking, right? 50 year old Foley was hitting on 16 year old boys and Hastert knew. Foley's behavior was highly immoral (even if legal) by any imaginable standard. Hastert should have outed Foley REGARDLESS of what it would have looked like, don't you think? It was his civic, moral and professional responsibility and failing to do it consituted an absolutely clear case of cover-up. Where are republican moral values when you need them?

Huh? If it was legal (and I don't know whether it was or not) how the hell do you "out" the guy? So just to be clear, your position is, if someone discovers that another is engaged in legal yet "immoral" behavior then that person should "out" the other? Bet you don't have many people "open up" with you....

So should Congressmen who cheat on their wives be afraid of reprisal from Hastert? Or if Hastert found out Pabst (who was asked directly by Hastert to run for Congress) gambles on-line I should be outed? Or if a Congressman whacks to gay porn (immoral, by YOUR standard) then he should be "outed"?