Congressman quits over sexual harrassment

[Balta1701]

Why would it be so unbelievable to think that some kids could have been 'having fun' with him by stringing him along? People all the time represent themselves as somebody they are not whiel on the internet. Back in the AOL internet days you heard all sorts of stoies about people pretending to be a woman and getting some guy to have 'cyber' with them, only to later bust out and proclaim themselves a man. And before you start foaming at the mouth, noone said this in any way absolved Foley from being a creep.

Then why even bring it up? Seriously, what does it gain to even tell one's listeners to think along those lines? The only purpose possible is to try to make the kids look somehow like bad guys in this.

Edited October 6, 2006 by Balta1701

[Rex Kickass]

I don't doubt that's the case. However, I hold my Congressmen to a standard. A standard that involves not having cybersex with potentially underage boys while voting on the floor of Congress.

 

It changes nothing. He's still a creep and he's still a child predator. The GOP leadership still knew about it and still chose to do nothing - whether or not the creepy old guy was led on by a couple kids because he's a creepy old guy.

 

Limbaugh bringing this up, is just a way for him to shift the blame on someone other than Foley, or his own party.

[Texsox]

Savage ripped Rush for being a shill for the GOP. I was very surprised. I can't believe any GOP faithful would be trying to save this guy. Toss him under the bus and save face. Not only is it the right thing to do but it will garner more votes.

[southsider2k5]

Just to twist the conversation in to a different philosophical area I have a couple questions for you all...

 

Would the reaction to this situation have been different if the page had been a female of the same age?

 

Also what would the reaction have been if the situation had been a female representative and male page?

[NorthSideSox72]

Would the reaction to this situation have been different if the page had been a female of the same age?

 

I think mostly yes. Other than the fact that the far right talking heads wouldn't have been trying to make this assinine connection between homosexuality and molestation.

 

Also what would the reaction have been if the situation had been a female representative and male page?

 

This one, the reaction would not have been as harsh (except from the opposite party, who would have tried hard to make it as big an issue as possible). Look at the situations lately with 30-something female teachers and 16 year old males. Yeah, they got in trouble. But the public outcry was minimal. I mean heck, look at some of those threads on this board when they happened - guys here were too pre-occupied deciding whether or not they'd "hit that" to notice it was technically rape.

[EvilMonkey]

I mean heck, look at some of those threads on this board when they happened - guys here were too pre-occupied deciding whether or not they'd "hit that" to notice it was technically rape.

Maybe in this tech savy world we should change that phrase to I would IM that? Sounds less violent and more up to date.

[Steff]

I mean heck, look at some of those threads on this board when they happened - guys here were too pre-occupied deciding whether or not they'd "hit that" to notice it was technically rape.

 

 

PFS, aint it. Take 2 seconds to think if it's was your child - male or female - that was raped.

 

Maybe in this tech savy world we should change that phrase to I would IM that? Sounds less violent and more up to date.

 

 

 

It's wrong regardless of how you pretty it up.

 

I can not even believe there is a "what if" on the subject. Very sad.

[southsider2k5]

Look at the situations lately with 30-something female teachers and 16 year old males. Yeah, they got in trouble. But the public outcry was minimal. I mean heck, look at some of those threads on this board when they happened - guys here were too pre-occupied deciding whether or not they'd "hit that" to notice it was technically rape.

 

This is actually the situation which came to my mind last night when I started thinking about it. To me it is the same basic idea. An older person is in a position of power, and uses that power to put themselves into situations to take advantage of younger, usually more naive people

[Steff]

This is actually the situation which came to my mind last night when I started thinking about it. To me it is the same basic idea. An older person is in a position of power, and uses that power to put themselves into situations to take advantage of younger, usually more naive people

 

 

 

Quit making excuses and just call this spade a spade. They are sick bastard pedophiles.

 

An older person in a position of power on a playing field with another - but younger - niave ADULT is again not even on the same planet for a comparison to be made.

[NorthSideSox72]

Quit making excuses and just call this spade a spade. They are sick bastard pedophiles.

 

An older person in a position of power on a playing field with another - but younger - niave ADULT is again not even on the same planet for a comparison to be made.

I think he was comparing the 35 yo teacher and 16 yo boy with 55 yo Congressman and 16 yo boy. In which case, I think its an OK comparison. I don't think he was making excuses for anyone, unless I misunderstood.

[Steff]

I think he was comparing the 35 yo teacher and 16 yo boy with 55 yo Congressman and 16 yo boy. In which case, I think its an OK comparison. I don't think he was making excuses for anyone, unless I misunderstood.

 

 

How is an older person abusing power with someone younger remotely comparable to a pedophile taking advantage of a child...?

[NorthSideSox72]

How is an older person abusing power with someone younger remotely comparable to a pedophile taking advantage of a child...?

I guess I see both of them as pedophiles - the teacher and the Congressman.

[Steff]

I guess I see both of them as pedophiles - the teacher and the Congressman.

 

 

 

And I'll agree with you every time on that one.

 

 

Yet how does that compare to someone older using power over someone younger?

 

 

Cut to the chase, I'm looking for a correction of the ignorant generalization here.

[NorthSideSox72]

And I'll agree with you every time on that one.

Yet how does that compare to someone older using power over someone younger?

Cut to the chase, I'm looking for a correction of the ignorant generalization here.

Um... I guess I am missing your point then. You mean the comparisons to Clinton and Lewinsky or something? If so, I agree, that isn't in the same ballpark.

[Steff]

Um... I guess I am missing your point then. You mean the comparisons to Clinton and Lewinsky or something? If so, I agree, that isn't in the same ballpark.

 

 

 

That's exactly what I mean.

[Texsox]

If it was a 16-year old female, I believe the furor would have been much greater. We still have that double standard in society. A 16-year old male getting some is cool, the girl could quickly be called a slut. As victims, a 16-year old girl is still considered to probably be saving herself, while the guy is thought of as busy trying to get laid.

 

And, completing the non-PC thinking, if it was an older female (especially of she was hot) and a younger male, some segments of society would be saying, lucky kid.

 

I DO NOT AGREE WITH THE ABOVE, JUST STATING MY OPINION OF HOW REACTIONS WOULD CHANGE.

[southsider2k5]

Quit making excuses and just call this spade a spade. They are sick bastard pedophiles.

 

An older person in a position of power on a playing field with another - but younger - niave ADULT is again not even on the same planet for a comparison to be made.

 

Umm what excuses? You are reading WAY to far into the post and finding something that isn't there. My point is that they are both indeed pedophiles, yet we as a society only really scorn one of them. I don't know where you are getting the crap about excusing the behavior in either case, and if it is there I would like you to point it out.

 

I also didn't speak of consenting adults in any case. Go back and reread the original post, it refers specifically to cases where one of the parties is underage, as does the post I replied to from NSS referring to the classroom situation.

[Rex Kickass]

Quit making excuses and just call this spade a spade. They are sick bastard pedophiles.

 

By definition, someone going after a young pubescent male or femaile is not a pedophile. A child molester sure. A sexual predator, absolutely. A creep and a half, most definitely. But a pedophile, no.

[Balta1701]

Bravo.

 

[Steff]

Umm what excuses? You are reading WAY to far into the post and finding something that isn't there. My point is that they are both indeed pedophiles, yet we as a society only really scorn one of them. I don't know where you are getting the crap about excusing the behavior in either case, and if it is there I would like you to point it out.

 

I also didn't speak of consenting adults in any case. Go back and reread the original post, it refers specifically to cases where one of the parties is underage, as does the post I replied to from NSS referring to the classroom situation.

 

 

You're right. I am reading way into this entire disgusting vile topic. Your use of "older" and "younger" versus adult and child struck a nerve.

 

 

 

By definition, someone going after a young pubescent male or femaile is not a pedophile. A child molester sure. A sexual predator, absolutely. A creep and a half, most definitely. But a pedophile, no.

 

 

It's good enough for the American Heritage Dictionary, it's good enough for me.

 

American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source ped·o·phile (pd-fl, pd-) Pronunciation Key

n.

An adult who is sexually attracted to a child or children.

 

pedo·philic (-flk) adj.

 

(Download Now or Buy the Book) The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

[Rex Kickass]

It's splitting hairs, Steff I know. But physically a 16, 17 year old is an adult - even if mentally or legally that isn't the case.

[Steff]

It's splitting hairs, Steff I know. But physically a 16, 17 year old is an adult - even if mentally or legally that isn't the case.

 

 

I know a 13 year old that's 5'9" and 170lbs. Physical attributes mean nothing where such abuse is concerned.

[GaelicSoxFan]

I hope the Dems hammer Hastert on this. I don't think Howard Dean and the DNC brain trust are hitting him hard enough. He thinks his you-know-what doesn't stink. He knew years ago and was hoping to use it as leverage.

[Balta1701]

I hope the Dems hammer Hastert on this. I don't think Howard Dean and the DNC brain trust are hitting him hard enough. He thinks his you-know-what doesn't stink. He knew years ago and was hoping to use it as leverage.

Speaking purely from a political perspective though...I don't see any reason why the Dems should do anything except let Hastert twist in the wind. Right now polls taken midweek show that 27% of Americans think Hastert should retain his majority leader position. 63% think he should resign, 43% think he should leave the House altogether.

 

The traditional Republican scandal-avoidance technique over the last few years has been to sound very contrite, announce an investigation, and start saying that you won't comment on an ongoing investigation while the investigation takes months/years and you stall wherever you can (i.e. the WMD in Iraq). This one, however, is so blatant and so obvious that even the press realizes something more should have been done.

 

Fox News polled yesterday suggesting that Hastert's resignation-or-not could be the difference between the Democrats winning 20 house seats and 50 house seats. The effects on the campaign have already started; the Republican leadership has been totally, 100% derailed. Hastert can't fund raise - he was planning some 30 campaign visits in the last few weeks (including in IN). The President's "Dems are weak on terror" message has been totally derailed for a week because everyone's paying attention to Hastert.

 

Already we have Rep. Harold Ford firing back "I'm not going to take a lecture on morality from a party that took hush money from a child predator" when his opponent criticized him for visiting the Playboy super bowl party a couple years ago. We've somehow got Lieberman defending Hastert (thanks Joe!). We've got great leading lines like this describing ads that the R candidates have to run.

Rep. Don Sherwood, a Republican fighting for re-election in northeastern Pennsylvania, says in a TV ad that he is “truly sorry” for cheating on his wife but denies ever abusing the woman he had the affair with.

And maybe most importantly, we've got a non-trivial decrease in the support for Republicans amongst evangelical voters, the ones who have been part of Karl Rove's key turnout strategy over the last few years.

 

The Dems have no reason to really push Hastert on this. Presumably he's not actually avoiding investigating any other potential child predators in his party, so hopefully the danger to the Page program (and thus the urgency in his removal) has ended...so as far as the Democrats are concerned, the more Dennis Hastert goes on TV and tries to blame his staff, George Soros, or wierd scandals involving the Clintons and Dick Morris, the better off the Dems are going to be. Right now, the Democratic strategists are hoping against hope that Hastert will not resign before the election. They've got 4+ weeks of ads saying "Candidate x voted for Dennis Hastert as majority leader" to run.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Speaking purely from a political perspective though...I don't see any reason why the Dems should do anything except let Hastert twist in the wind.

 

Exactly Correct. Please stay on the job, Denny!