Re: Heros and Cads

As a former resident of Massachusetts, I can tell you that Studds was not a hero. At the time of the activity with a page, he was a closeted individual who came out afterward. Notwithstanding, he was also a great congressperson who represented his constutuents well and was re-elected on that basis. There is, however, one distinction. Studds did not attribute his actions to any influence other than his own sexuality. On the other hand, Foley condemned those who engaged in like behavior and, when caught, blamed alcoholism and a Catholic priest for his actions. Foley was a hypocrite who was hoisted on his own petard. There have been moral scandels involving politicians throughout our history. For example, one president had children by his slave; another had an illegitimate child. What usually is the barometer for whether the public is willing to forgive is an admission of one's actions. I have no sympathy for Studds or Foley on this issue; both engaged in inappoproriate behavior

Re: Media

The media or anyone else cannot create a hero, unless you permit them to. Moroever, not all newspapers, magazines, and news programs have argued that Studds was. He was, in fact, a congressman who ably performed his representational duties. What has changed is the repeal of the fairness in broadcasting regulations, so that we are now subject to overexposure of a individual's pathetic and inappropriate conduct. Other than the investigation into whether any member of Congress, Democrat or Republican, knew of and covered-up Foley's behavior, his resignation in disgrace should have been sufficient to satisfy anyone's bloodlust and the media barrage should have stopped. We face far more serious problems in this country than the sexual pecadillos of our representatives. Frankly, I have little interest in the sexualty activity of my elected officials unless they have done something illegal and, in Foley's case, he didn't; the page was of the age of consent in the District