FOLEY

Mr. Singh,

Just to provide a little context, I have posted some information about Gerry Studds (D - with a boy), and Dan Crane (R - with a girl). Both of them were censured by the House in 1983 for having sex with conressional pages. Since the pages were both 17, the age of consent in D.C., neither was prosecuted. However, Crane was remorseful, and Studds was defiant. Amazingly, Studds was reelected!

Web Link

I think both of these guys should have been expelled from the House. Neither was. Shame on the House.

Foley did NOT have sex with boy pages - he just suggested it. He quit, as he should have.

Barney Frank is STILL in the House, even though he allowed his young prostitute lover to run a prostitution ring out of his apartment. Frank then lied about it in a memo to the House. He only got a reprimand. Why is he still there? He should have been expelled years ago. Prostituion is illegal, in D.C., period.

It seems that Rebublicans have a higher moral standard than Democrats. They both transgress, but the Democrats seem to have no shame.

On the contrary Gary, the Republicans have lower moral standards.
It is clear they knew about this weeks ago, but sat on it in the hopes that it would blow over before the elections--the bottom line for the Republicans is, if it helps them keep the House, then re-electing a pedophile is okay.
Anyway, the Republicnas are more "holier than thou" when it comes to morals etc. That is why Crane was not re-elected--he was a holier than thou hypocrite and the people in his district threw him out.
Remember during the Monica LEwinsky scandal, all the Republicnas were outraged--then many of them were exposed for having had extramarital affairs. More republican hypocrisy.
Let's see what the religious right has to say now--they vilified Clinton for consentual sex, let's see what they say about one of their own being a pedophile.

Marvin,

Gerry Studds' issues were also known for a long time. Barney Frank is STILL there, and it has been decades! How is that possible?

If anything good comes out of this scandal, Frank should be expelled. Foley is already gone.

Clinton had sex with an intern. He lied about it in a sex harrassment investigation. He was shamed by his own behavior, but he was impeached for lying under oath. Remember, Clinton supported investigation into past sexual history of supervisors and bosses. Hung by his own noose....

Republicans are just as randy as Democrats. Both are hypocrites. But Democrats are currently being smug, while one of their own most powerful House members (Frank) is trotted out on a regular basis. He needs to go!

How is it possible that Barney Frank is still around? His constituents feel he is doing a good job and have voted him back into office. If you have a problem with that, move to his district and start a campaign to unseat him.
Yes, Clinton had sex with an interm--consentual sex, an issue that was blown way out of proportion by the republican hypocrites.
STudds also had a consentual affair with someone of legal age--Crane committed adultery, while Foley is a pedophile.
I think you have a problem with gay members of congress or possibly gays in general.

Gary--it appears that like most republican supporters you are playing fast and loose with the truth--you claim that Barney Frank knew that a prostitution ring was being run out of his apartment. Apparently that is notthe case--he fired the fellow as soon as he found out about it.
Do you actually have any proof that Frank was a knowing accomplice to the running of the prostitution ring? Or are you parroting Fox news and their gang of republican cheerleaders?
By the way what really galls people about the foley affair is the fact that the republicnas and the people that pull their strings (the religious right) are so busy telling us how to live and what is good and what is evil and what god wants etc etc.

Marvin,

Here is what Frank's pimp lover had to say about it:

"He knew exactly what I was doing," Gobie said. "It was pretty obvious. If he had to come home early {from work}, he would call home to be sure the coast was clear . . . . He was living vicariously through me. He said it was kind of a thrill, and if he had been 20 years younger he might be doing the same thing."

Web Link

BTW, I am an independent, and just call 'em as I see 'em.

Yes, I have seen that article.
I repeat, do you actually have any proof that Frank was a knowing accomplice to the running of the prostitution ring?
The words of a convicted pimp hardly constitutes proof.
Anyway, he was censured by the House, his constituents apparently had no problem with it since he has been reelected by 65% of the vote each election.
ALso there is a big difference between consenual sex and pedophelia and the fact that the "we stand for strong moral values" republicans trie dto hush it up prior to the election. Even the republicans will support child molestation if it means holding on to the house.

Marvin,

Let's not be naive here. Frank hired a hooker and paid him for sexual services (completely illegal). Frank then kept the guy on his personal payroll, and abused his House office by writing letters (on House stantionary) to get the guy out of a legal scrape. In other words, in case you you don't get it, he was protecting his boyfriend. His boyfriend was a golddigger, but Frank was an illegal pig, and brought shame to his office. On balance, I would take the pimp's word, over Frank's (it rings true to me).

BTW, Frank was NOT censured by the House - he was reprimanded (a much lesser penalty). Apparently, Frank had some friends in high places.

I maintain that when Republicans get into sexual scandals, gay or straight, they are held to a higher standard (by Republicans). Republicans resign, while Democrats get reelected. How else can one explain that?

The bottom line for me is that Frank needs to go, NOW.

Yes, and all these issues were dealt with 16+ years ago. It is old news--just like when a well known republican congressman was shown to be having an adulterous affair during the Lewinsky era, he stated that it was a youthful indiscretion.
This was a youthful indiscertion by Frank--the fact that you believe the pimp still does not constitute proof.
Well if getting rid of Frank is so important for your life, as I stated before, move to his district and unseat him using all of your persuasive arguments and proof.
the republicans should be held to a higher standard since they are so outspoken about "moral values" (i.e. moral values for everyone but not them--do as I say not as I do menatlity).

No, Marvin, Frank's issues were NOT dealt with 16 years ago. They were given a wink and a nod. He should have been expelled from Congress. I should not have to move to his district, because the House should have acted responsibly in the first place.

Using your reasoning, Marvin, if Foley's page target was 17 instead of 16, and his constituents wanted to reelect him to Congress, that would be fine. I could see Democrats doing that (e.g. Gerry Studds), but not Republicans. I could be wrong, but that's the pattern I see.

Call it what you want, a wink and a nod, friends in high places etc--it was dealt with 16 years ago. He was reprimanded/censured (however you want to put it). It is over--get over it yourself.
By the way if you read the entire article in the link you posted you will note that Gobie admits that his motives are financial. Obviously for money he will say anything. Clearly a person who's word cannot be trusted. But if it is still such an issue fo ryou,write your congressman and demand that they re-open the case against Frank.
Anyway why harp on Frank? because he is gay or a east coast liberal?
What Foley did is pedophilia. It is against the law. If Frank broke the law then the authorities should have charged him. That is separate from expelling him from the house.
And yes, if Foley's target was of the age of consent, then it would be a matter for his constituents to deal with. Again many people, and I am sure many of his constituents, given the fact that it is a republican district, would find a relationship between a teenage male and a 50+ year old man distasteful.
Remember what Studd's did was not against the law--the guy was of the age of consent. WHile some people may find gay relations distasteful, they were not breaking the law. i applaud Studds for turning his back on te House when the repimanded him. Obviously his constituents felt the same way.

Marvin,

Foley did not engage in peophilia, an act consisting of sexual activity with prepubscent or peripuescent youth. Foley is guilty of trying to entice young men who are below the legal age of consent (apparently). At least get your terms correct, Marvin.

Beyond this legal aspect, he is guilty of violating his position of power for sexual gratification (similar to Clinton, Frank, Crane, Studds, etc.). All of those guys should have quit, once they were discovered. Democrats, like you I suspect, don't seem to think that it is very important. Thus you are proud of Studds. You make my case.

I am glad that I have been able to bring some happiness to your life.
The question of whether engaging in internet sexual gratification with an underage minor is pedophilia or not, or whether he is just guilty of trying to entice underage boys,will be determined later, however it is clear that he has broken the law. So trying to nitpick my terminology to try to equate his actions with those of others is the excuse of a person who is being outwitted by a sharper mind.
What you fail to grasp is that, as you put it, "violating his position of power for sexual gratification", is not against the law. It may be distasteful to you. however in the end it is none of your business.
You sound like the classic republican--force your morals on others, condemn people to hell because of their legal actions while engaging in the same actions or worse behind closed doors.
Having sex with a person who has past the age of consent (as in the cases of crane, Studds, Frank etc) is not against the law. Crane's constituents found it distasteful and booted him out of office--Studd's and Frank's did not. Do you see yourself as being more intelligent than the voters in their respective districts?
Yes, I make your case, that consentual love between two people is not wrong as long as they are both of age. It also appears to me that you not only have a problem with gay people, but a problem with people of differing ages that engage in sexual conatct.
Why I am proud of Studds is that he would not take, what was obviously a case of age-discrimination and/or gay-bashing (however you want to interpret it) sitting down. Hima nd his partner were of age. The fact that they were having an affair is none of your business.
By the way, what about all the Republicans and some democrats that were getting their pockets filled by Jack Abramoff? Should they resign? It seem sthat with the COngress in Republican hands, the republicand, in the senate, house and white house, get away with murder. i think there are more important issues than the fact that Frank may have gotten off to lightly 16+ years ago.
For get it, gary, you do not have a leg to stand on, your arguments are bogus and full of inconsistencies and they ignore basic facts.

You have just justified open season on congressional pages who are 17 years old. Many of them are vulnerable to their powerful bosses. Would parents allow their kids to become pages if your ethics were to become the prevailing thinking?

The House can expell any member for bringing dishonor to the House. Crane and Studds and Frank brought dishonor to the House. Only Crane felt any shame about it.

Crane did not feel any shame--he ran for re-election instead of resigning. The voters threw him out