"What Foley did was bad, but..."

Sending sexually explicit emails/IMs to minors is bad, but...

That anyone would utter anything even close to that is not only morally reprehensible, but just outright stupid.  Yet, that's what is has come to.  Many Republicans/conservative pundits have actually put themselves into the box of defending a child sex predator... and they seem to be convinced it's a winning move.

Of course there's the unhinged Drudge report on the matter, which is totally untrue, but then you've popular talk show hosts with these gems:

Savage-

You know, don't put me in a position of defending [Foley] because it's indefensible. ... But the kid was leading him on. I mean, this kid was leading him on.

Limbaugh -

I'm not trying to get into a defense of what Mark Foley did. Please don't misunderstand. I'm just telling you that the -- the -- the orgy and the orgasm that has been taking place in the media since Friday and with the Democrats is -- it's all coordinated, and it's all -- it's all oriented toward the election.

Even while principled conservatives try to convince their brethren to face the facts, we get these nuggets:

While no one is defending Foley 's actions, if someone knew about the IM's months ago, why didn't they say anything? ... I'm not buying it!! I plan to fight this until the end.

From Foley being hung as a pedophile child molester, we've come to the point where it's doubtful he commited any crime at all.

I don't think Foley will ever be exonerated as he as just to willing, he is toast, but let us consider this ...
Why didn't they report this to their page supervisor ?

The thing all these people are failing to see is "normal" Americans with (and even without) kids have an emotional, visceral reaction to adults sexually preying on children.  Not to sound glib, but the children are our future... and it's instinctual to protect them.   Just look at the wildly successful NBC show "To Catch A Predator".  The core of the show evokes an anger towards the perverts and criminals, and NO ONE would ever try to defend them.  There is NO defense, and there is NO "but...".

Hastert could've easily lessened the impact of ALL of this, with his job in tact.  You come out and admit, "I saw those emails that Foley sent.  We responded in a way that we thought was appropriate, but we realize we made a terrible mistake.  We were not equipped with the knowledge of how to identify potential sexual predators, and did not recognize the signs."  At that point, you make a grand gesture that you want to prevent this from EVER happening again, and you will hold a special session in the House dedicated to educating ALL members about sexual predators and the warning signs.  You bring in top experts in the field to give talks about the situation.  You urge the TV media to cover the session in full, so ALL Americans can be educated.

And if the Repubs wanted to play politics with it, they could hold this special session a week or so before the election... and imagine the campaign fodder if members didn't show up.  <TV ad> Rep. Joe Shmoe doesn't think HE needs to worry our children's safety </TV ad>  

Instead, they've chosen the course of "but...".

•  I think the word is "guileless"

  --- they announce their crime as they ey commit it. The English had the same problem with their government back in 1649. To solve it, they cut off the head of Charles I.

  by doorguy on Fri Oct 06, 2006 at 10:20:11 AM PDT

  •  Funny thing was, Charles led to lots of stuff

    and is remembered for

    • his Divine Right of Kings, a God-given infallibility doctrine
    • leveraging religious unrest, setting interests against each other.
    • flouting the parliamentary precepts of the Magna Carta
    • undue reliance on military, dictatorial rule in a parliamentary democracy.
    • starting the English Civil War
    • losing his head for starting the English Civil War
    • helping inspire many naps in High School history: The Treaty of Westpahalia.

    Gee, does all that sound familiar?

    What was the last one, the Treaty of Westaphalia all about? Another odd harmonic convergence, as it turns out. It was born out of a Hundred Years warring with no sense of why beyond territorail jealousy and leaderly whims. Here's wiki

    The Treaty of Westphalia incorporated four basic principles:

           * The principle of the sovereignty of nation-states and the fundamental right of political self determination
           * The principle of (legal) equality between nation-states
           * The principle of internationally binding treaties between states
           * The principle of non-intervention of one state in the internal affairs of another state

       These ideas are crucial in the development of international relations, forming the basis for the modern system of recognized sovereignty for every independent nation-state.

    Yeah, heads are gonna roll, one way or the other.

    by fouro on Fri Oct 06, 2006 at 10:31:26 AM PDT

    •  Good comment -

      only you seem to confuse the Thirty Years War with the Hundred...

      by Allogenes on Fri Oct 06, 2006 at 11:08:47 AM PDT

      •  Ah, you got me there!

        Sloppy writing and thinking - I was thinking back the the family grudge of Charles, the Hapsburgs and the Palatinate. Growing up in UK, I was always taught that 100-war begat the the 30 with some fuming in between.

        by fouro on Fri Oct 06, 2006 at 08:01:13 PM PDT

        •  Fair 'nuff -

          The Brits have lots of wars to keep straight. The War of Jenkins' Ear must be an all-time favorite...

          by Allogenes on Sat Oct 07, 2006 at 06:33:44 AM PDT

  •  Now wasn't that ghastly! (n/t)

    by Allogenes on Fri Oct 06, 2006 at 11:07:20 AM PDT

•  Personally

  I believe this 'but'heads are speaking from experience.  Their defense is covered in the "there but for the grace of God" line.  They know they've done wrong and they're just thanking their lucky stars that they haven't been caught.  Yet.

  by fabooj on Fri Oct 06, 2006 at 10:24:02 AM PDT

•  What Foley did was bad but

  eviscerating the Constitution is worse.

  by marykk on Fri Oct 06, 2006 at 10:36:29 AM PDT

•  What's really got them scrambling

  is the realization that they're all enmeshed in a web of guilt--that everyone of them that took money they didn't even need to gain or keep a seat in Congress was making a commitment to keep secrets and follow the party line.
  In a sense, these political "donations" are a sort of blackmail, designed to insure compliance when the time comes.
  For want of a better term, I'm referring to them as "anticipatory bribes."  It's pretty clear that Foley was prepared to say, "you took my money; now you owe me."
  Who knows what other secrets are being covered up?

  by hannah on Fri Oct 06, 2006 at 10:54:57 AM PDT

•  The age of Consent

  FoxNews said last night that Foley may not have committed a crime at all. Surely talking that way to those who he had authority over is at least one crime.

  I did a google on the age of consent and the internet law. Here are excerpts I came up with:

  {Chapter 117, 18 U.S.C. 2422(b)} forbids the use of the United States Postal Service or other interstate or foreign means of communication, such as telephone calls or use of the internet, to persuade or entice a minor (defined as under 18 throughout chapter) to be involved in a criminal sexual act. The act has to be illegal under state or federal law to be charged with a crime under 2422(b), and can even be applied to situations where both parties are within the same state, but uses an instant messenger program whose servers are in another state.[3]a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_North_America#Federal_Laws">

  Enforcement is more likely in the case of a larger age gap in North America; furthermore, laws are becoming more explicit about prohibiting sex between minors and authority figures, even when the act would otherwise be legal.
  The latter details acceptable age ranges for consensual sex between peers that otherwise would not be legal because one or both of the participants would be below the age of consent. Internet law

  Where a jurisdiction's age of consent laws for sexual activity treat those convicted of those laws with the same severity as criminal rape the law is often referred to as statutory rape. This is an emotive title to some who view the age of consent laws as lesser crimes or as no crime at all. The different titles of age of consent laws include statutory rape, rape of a child, corruption of a minor, carnal knowledge of a minor and so on. However, in the vernacular many of these terms are interchangeable and little differentiation is made.   Age of Consent  

  by relentless on Fri Oct 06, 2006 at 11:03:55 AM PDT

  •  Of course

    The real issue isn't whether or not he committed a crime; even if (as I think likely) he managed to stay just within the boundaries of the law, that's still several lightyears away from the outer limits of ethically acceptable behavior.

    And by the way, you can reasonably finish the title with "covering it up was even worse."

    by ebohlman on Fri Oct 06, 2006 at 12:13:58 PM PDT

•  Funny thing, but sex vs. harrassment

  GOP leaders and MSM will say ANYTHING,indeed.

  The sexual seducation is bad enough, yet they aren't complaining about workplace sexual harassment?

  by LNK on Fri Oct 06, 2006 at 11:21:04 AM PDT