pudge's Journal: Congressional Sex Scandal

So the Republican mayor of Spokane, Jim West, is alleged to have had gay relationships with minors, though the allegations were never remotely proven. The left decries him. Typical Republican!, they say.

Now a Republican congressman apparently wrote sexual messages to congressional pages, at least one of whom was a 16-year-old male. The left is tearing him a new one ... so to speak.

Funny, but the left didn't have the same outcry when my former representative, Democrat Gerry Studds, had an actual sexual affair with a minor, male, page. This page was only one year older, 17. Indeed, the left today holds him up as a hero, and attacks the right for "demonizing" him.

Just ... funny. That's all.

(Side note: back then, there were only two openly gay Congressmen, Studds and Democrat Barney Frank. Studds was my rep from when I was born in '73 until '86, and then Frank was my rep from '96 to '03. I don't know much about Studds, since I was young, but my dad says even though he disagreed with him politically, that he was a good Congressman and a hard worker. I felt similarly about Frank. But none of that justifies the impropriety of what Studds did, and the Congress was absoultely right to censure him. Even if he weren't a minor, and regardless of his gender, you keep your hands off the pages, dude.)

Doesn't look good for the Rep...

[TopShelf]

Have you seen this [abcnews.com] and this [go.com]?

No wonder he resigned so quickly!

Re:

[pudge]

Yep. I am just saying, assuming this page is 16 or 17 ... how is that any worse than what Gerry Studds did?

Re:

[ces]

It was over 25 years ago (a different time as they say) and Studds wasn't the head of the "Missing and Exploited Children Caucus" as well as the author and chief sponsor of laws that made it a federal felony to solicit a minor online for the purposes of sex.

Not knowing the specifics I can't say for sure Studds didn't break any laws but Foley very likely did (and at least one of them he authored).

Re:

[pudge]

Noting that Studds wasn't the head of that caucus is question-begging: it's only relevant if Foley was actually doing something wrong with these children. And if Foley was doing something wrong, it seems to me that Studds was, too. Regardless of the fact that he did it in 1973.

Re:

[ces]

Noting that Studds wasn't the head of that caucus is question-begging: it's only relevant if Foley was actually doing something wrong with these children. And if Foley was doing something wrong, it seems to me that Studds was, too. Regardless of the fact that he did it in 1973.

Ok to back up a bit I do thing that what both Studds and Foley did was wrong. Even if it wasn't necessarily illegal, it was immoral. First of all it is unseemly for middle aged men to be having any sort of sexual relations with teenag

Re:

[pudge]

Not all Democrats were so charitable of Studds [nytimes.com], of course (from June 1984):

A Democratic challenger to Representative Gerry E. Studds today called the Congressman's affair with a teen-age House page ''an act of child molestation'' and said it would be the focus of the primary campaign.

''People, if they're going to be honest about it, know what the main issue is, and that's his censure and his activities with the young page,'' said the challenger, Sheriff Peter Flynn of Plymouth County.

''The Congressman has d

Re:

[ces]

Only in MA I guess.

PFM made some valid points

[sam_handelman]

Which is why, of course, I never set my journals to "no foes". [slashdot.org] I've edited his points for clarity and relevance.

1) What Foley and Studds both did was not illegal. The age of consent in Washington DC is 16.

2) The 17 year old who had an affair with Studds prominently stated that their affair was consensual, that they didn't regret it, and that it was none of anybody's business. Precedent makes it a relevant concern (see next item).

3) Foley is a raging hypocrite, as several people have pointed out. The left i

Re:

[pudge]

Sorry, I can't respond to this post because of the last bit. You're now foe'd.

Re:

[pudge]

Oh, and the funny part is, I was all set to respond and point out how you're incorrect. Too bad you'll never know how.

Re:

[Zeriel]

Mind posting that response anyway for those of us in the peanut gallery? I was gonna inquire about his first point (AoC in D.C.) myself.

Re:

[pudge]

I don't want to read his post again. Feel free to ask for yourself!

Re:

[MarkusQ]

I don't want to read his post again. Feel free to ask for yourself!

I'll bite (so to speak). The age of consent [wikipedia.org] in the relevant jurisdiction appears to be 16. So how do you justify calling this "sex with a minor"?

--MarkusQ

P.S. I do fully agree with your conclusion:

Even if he weren't a minor, and regardless of his gender, you keep your hands off the pages, dude.

Which was very much my view on Clinton (interns as well as pages are there to work, not to be fondled).

Re:

[pudge]

The "age of consent" does not define who is and is not a minor. If the 16-year-old were tried for, say, car theft, it would probably be as a minor, not as an adult, for example.

Re:

[MarkusQ]

Point taken. So to answer your original question, I gather the distinction is that what Studds and Crane (the Republican caught up in the same scandal) was tacky, improper, but legal and they got censured for it, while what Foley did was tacky, improper, and a felony [govtrack.us]. Also, in the former case I don't recall any coordinated effort on the part of the party leadership(s) to cover it up, which I belive is also a felony.

--MarkusQ

Re:

[pudge]

I gather the distinction is that what Studds and Crane (the Republican caught up in the same scandal) was tacky, improper, but legal and they got censured for it, while what Foley did was tacky, improper, and a felony.

I am not entirely sure of that. The FBI is investigating, we'll see.

However, that's beside the explicit point I was making: Studds is today lionized for having sex with a minor page (and for rejecting criticism of his acts), and Foley is called "sick" for merely having sexual e-mails/IMs with

Re:

[MarkusQ]

I mostly agree, with only a few points of difference:

• What he is accused of doing is clearly a felony; rather than saying "The fact that it's a felony (if it is)" I would say "The fact that it's a felony (if he did what he is accused of)"
• Even if the coverup doesn't rise to the level of a felony (and I agree that has yet to be shown) their handling of it was certainly incompetent

That said, I agree that it is hypocritical for people to defend (even lionize) actions from their own party that they decry f