Re: Perhaps the difference is

"Consent and timing" - perhaps we should also throw geographic location into the mix. Inasmuch as the age of consent in DC is reported to be 16, one can say that Gerry Studds' sexual relationship with a 17 year old was legal. It seems odd that a person who is not old enough to vote would be considered legally old enough to enter into a sexual relationship. But no one ever said that the law had to make any sense. So now, let us reason together and admit that what Mark Foley did was not the same thing as what Gerry Studds did. Mark Foley sent inappropriate emails. Gerry Studds had sexual relations with someone who was not old enough to vote at the time. If we cannot see the difference here, we have entered into an intellectual void and lost all sense of moral discernment.

Re: Perhaps the difference is

Call me stupid, but I don't see any difference. And your explanation confuses me even more.

Re: Perhaps the difference is

Sorry for the confusion but I don't think the source of confusion is in my explanation. But perhaps we can clarify the point by considering the difference between murder and conspiracy to commit murder. In the first case the actual deed is accomplished. In the second case it never goes beyond the planning stage so no actual deed is ever done. Both acts are reprehensible, but in the assessment of a proper penalty who should receive the harsher punishment; the murderer or the one who wanted to commit murder but did not? If you do not see a difference here then you have already enetered that intellectual void and lack moral discernment.

Re: hero or disgrace

So you are saying that on the continuum of moral offenses it is more evil to be a hypocrite than to be a pedophile.

Re: Politics, Money, Heroes and Cads

I agree that there is a significant difference between Gerry Studds and Mark Foley. Gerry Studds actually had sexual relations with an underage peson. Mark Foley sent inappropriate emails to underage persons seeking to have similar relations. So who are the bigger hypocrites? The Republicans who hold up the standard of Family Values, and when they find a wolf in sheep's clothing in their mix they boot him out and condemn his behavor. On the other hand, the Democrats celebrate the actual sexual behavior of one of their own, but condemn somone outside of their party who wants to engage in that same behavior but never does.

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

Re: Gerry Studds

Perhaps you all are just a little bit on the defensive about the Republican party because you seem to be on a downward spiral...

An intelligent answer would deal more with the actual facts than with the slanderous opinions. I could sit around all day and compare problems between Republicans and Democrats... the real problem is... BOTH sides have made mistakes. The people do NOT make the mistake because they are members of EITHER party. The PERSON makes the mistake.

To claim that the mistakes were made because Studds was a democrat would be like saying that YOU killed my cousin because you are a Republican.

Re: Gerry Studds

This has been all about facts.

Two congressmen were found to have engaged in inappropriate conduct with minors. One was run out of his job, the other was reelected several times. Regardless of party affiliation this is NOT opinion. It's historical fact.

If you want to talk about opinion look at your own post.. i.e. "because you seem to be on a downward spiral" Perhaps we could talk about that opinion..

Re: Does Political Affiliation matter?

You're talking apples and oranges. Elected officials are not the same as private sector citizens. Get back to the context of the article we're discussing here. Try to avoid partisan comments such as "see if you would still be making the same comments if Johnny had been a Republicrat"