STAY ON TARGET DU: PEDOPHILIA IS NOT A SEX SCANDAL!!!

[berni_mccoy]

It's a CRIMINAL ISSUE that involves the entire REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP as well as a COVER UP and OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.

Keep the MESSAGE CLEAR. Don't fall into the republican muddy waters.

[LiberalArkie]

1. It is not a SEX scandal, it is a MORALITY and VALUES scandal from the

top down. Just like trickle down economics, this is trickle down values..

[berni_mccoy]

2. It's a CRIMINAL SCANDAL.

[MADem]

3. So far, there isn't even any proven pedophelia

It's a nastyass old man sniffing around teenagers, it's an inappropriate senior - subordinate relationship, and it does have elements of sex in it.

But there's no firm (excuse the pun) evidence of his fooling around with underage or prepubescent children. Yet, anyway.

So it IS a sex scandal, an "internet sex" scandal at a minimum.

[berni_mccoy]

4. THERE IS PROBABLE CAUSE and if law enforcement DID THEIR JOB

They'd have plenty of evidence by now.

Have you read the IM's?!?! There is explicit talks about sex acts and references to past meetings.

The AGE of CONSENT IN FL and at the FEDERAL level is 18, and there is definite contact between them while he was in FL.

[MADem]

5. Well, that remains to be proven, frankly

None of us has the birth certificates of these pages, never mind their names. There are several pages involved in this imbroglio. You do not know for certain how old they were. None of us do. It's perfectly appropriate to be screaming for an investigation, but beyond that, you don't want to make claims you can't back up with dead-certain facts.

And to be blunt, I don't care WHAT kind of scandal they call this, so long as they don't try to tone it down to "email scandal." I like PAGE Scandal, or PAGEGATE, or even FOLEYGATE. Sex Scandal even works, if it makes the GOP voter in "the Heartland" sit up and pay attention.

What's happening here is this:
--A creepy old Congressman is pestering young teens over the internet, and who knows how else. He's alleged to have gone to their dormitory, baying in a drunken stupor to be let in, and had to be removed by the police.

--He touts family values, yet behaves like a scuzzy pervert, encouraging children to have internet sex and talk about their private parts.

--He is a hypocrite who has abused his authority. The GOP leadership has KNOWN about his behavior and has covered it up for purely political reasons.

That's what's going on here--if there's more to it, an investigation will uncover it. But honestly, that's plenty for now. If there's more to come, then this will be a gift that keeps on giving.

We don't want to get ahead of ourselves. It wouldn't be a good thing if everyone is yelling "pedophile" (which is technically incorrect) or even "minor" if the kid turns out to be 18 or more. We should be yelling things like "interfering with young, impressionable subordinates" and "abusing the trust of parents who sent their children to DC to learn about government" and "disgraceful, hypocritical behavior" and "sick bum, trying to have sex with teenagers."

That'll do at this stage of the game!

[mom cat]

6. It is a crime! Internet solicitation of a minor is a crime!

[MADem]

7. Show me a birth certificate. PROVE the kids are minors.

I am not saying this isn't the case, but it ain't proven. And we shouldn't GET AHEAD of the story. When your enemy is destroying himself, stay out of the way.

MINOR means different things depending on the context. You can engage in sexual contact with a person of any age, no matter how big the "icky-yuck" factor, before you are eligible to vote in many states.

Let the investigation sort all that stuff out. Because you or I do not know for an irrefutable fact if these kids were minors when these IMs were typed.

Far better to stick to the "Hastert knew and lied...party of family values is party of cover-up...Hastert prefers power to keeping teens safe" themes.

[mom cat]

9. Age 16 is a minor.

[MADem]

12. Again, a birth certificate? 16 is the YOUNGEST a page can be

Most, by the time they get home, are 17 or even 18--the Page Year is a 'junior year' program.

And in some states, you have to be "UNDER" 16 (as in fifteen and 364 days old, or less) for sexual conduct to be criminal.

All I am saying is don't get ahead of yourself. You don't KNOW. None of us do. You give the opposing team ammo and an "ah-HA!!" moment if you insist on a crime that remains unproven as yet. Let the investigators do their work, and we'll see.

For now, it's enough to focus on the outrageous behavior of a 52 year old man with TEENS--and it doesn't matter if the teens are 16, 17. 18 or 19. It's abuse of trust, it's inapproriate senior-subordinate contact, and it's horrific judgment on the former congressman's part. It's also an entire GOP leadership covering UP for the guy. Icing on the cake? The offer of supplying alcohol is certainly not a 'family values' move, either.

[NNN0LHI]

8. This isn't a court of law here at DU

I say Foley is a pedophile. And anyone who defends him is no better.

You want to disagree with me that is your prerogative.

Don

[MADem]

10. Who's defending him? What's wrong with you? Leave your logic

behind, or what?

He simply isn't a pedophile, according to the dictionary and accepted medical definition, no matter how much you might want him to be just that. All of those young men had reached puberty.

He's an ephebophile, or a hebephile, if you want to get technical. He likes postpubescent young men, apparently.

All I am saying is that is important to not fly off the handle ahead of the evidence. Those of you who are way too eager to convict him of sexual assault on a minor will be very unhappy if it turns out that Foley was too clever and waited until they turned 18 to do whatever it is he wanted to do. If it turns out he did do just that, well, like I said elsewhere, the situation will be the gift that keeps on giving in the run up to November.

It's better to focus on the grave abuse of trust issues, the inappropriate sexual banter on the internet, the offers of supplying underage teens with alcohol, and things of that nature. To focus on a false accusation of pedophilia doesn't help our team.

[NNN0LHI]

13. I didn't specify who was defending him. Look:

>>>And anyone who defends him is no better.<<<

See. Anyone. As in anyone who defends him.

I will reiterate you can call him anything you want to call him.

I just reserve the right to agree with the Republican strategist quoted below. I think he has it right.

Don


http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0610/04/ldt.01.html

<snip>ED ROLLINS, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Well, first of all, I think Democrats do have their intensity. I do think that they think they're going to get the Congress back, which is very important to them.

You know, there's probably going to be 35 million fewer voters in this election than there was in 2004. That was the drop-off -- was the drop-off from 2000. And my sense is that a giant group of conservative voters dropped off when they found out, at least according to Karl Rove's estimates, when they found out that George Bush had a drunk driving arrest in the closing days of the campaign.

So now we have a party that allegedly has a pedophile who basically was sitting in the Congress sending e-mails instead of voting to pages. And when the story gets finished, we may have been trying to protect him. So I think there's going to be a drop off.

[Spider Jerusalem]

15. Actually, he isn't a pedophile...

because a pedophile is someone with a sexual attraction to prepubescents. This is very simple. You can say he's a pedophile of you want to, but you're still WRONG (and pointing this out doesn't constitute a defence of Foley's behaviour, either, which you seem to have a hard time grasping, for some reason).

[Jacobin]

11. Sounds like Cardinal Law's deposition

[madmusic]

14. And hypocritical laws.

Merely laws, and since we are a nation of laws above all else, who cares?