Just to be clear on one thing, there is no double standard when it comes to members of Congress being “overly nice” to underage pages.
With that out of the way, I’d like to share with you the written gas-passing I found in the latest Blog House. Little Timmy, objective to the core, must not have realized the flatulent nature of this week’s column:
[E]veryone agrees that the actions of the disgraced former Republican congressman from Florida were repugnant.
I can get behind (no pun intended) that statement, but the next one…
When voters hear "Mark Foley," some Republicans want them to see Gerry Studds. Studds was a Massachusetts congressman who was censured in 1983 for a consensual relationship he had with a 17-year-old male page in 1973.
Consensual or not, Studds was screwing a kid: An underage child who, according to the law, was not able to give consent and was, therefore, being butt-raped by a member of Congress.
Timmy must write what he hears in his farts. I wouldn’t be surprised if he experienced some anal leakage due to a loose sphincter.
Why did Timmy soft sell what Studds did? The facts, as we know them today, have yet to suggest that Foley had a sexual relationship with any underage page, let alone one(s) of age. Studds, on the other hand, admitted to having a SEXUAL relationship with an UNDERAGE page.
Notice, also, how Foley quit his job, while Studds circled the wagon, called the investigation a gay witch hunt and was subsequently elected to six more terms.
That’s right, try to take to task a gay man for screwing a minor and suddenly you are displaying all sorts of homophobic rage. You, it turns out, are the problem. Not the old man with his dick in some kid’s ass.
If what Foley did is repugnant, what Studds (a prophetic name if ever there were one) must be considered vulgar, repulsive and nauseating at least.
But we certainly can’t compare the two – that would be apples to oranges I’m told