[LS]

1) But it doesn't matter if a Dem does it, and that still doesn't explain my question of why, if it was a prank, Foley had anything to quit over.

2) On the other hand, it doesn't fit that the Dems are THAT stupid to think they can harp on this without opening it up to ALL homosexuals in the Congress. We're all missing something, really big.

[VRWCtaz]

"...We're all missing something, really big."

I've had that thought since this whole mess began.

[EODGUY]

"1) But it doesn't matter if a Dem does it, and that still doesn't explain my question of why, if it was a prank, Foley had anything to quit over."

I believe it is because, if we accept the premise of the article, the "prank" was that the page was leading Foley on......the reality was Foley didn't know it was a prank and acted in the manner he did thinking he was writing to an equally interested person. Put simply, according to the article, the page was kidding, Foley was serious.

In regard to your second comment, we need look no further than the dem who did have a sexual relationship with an underage person. As I recall, he was asked to step down (either by Pelosi or Daschle) and just said "No". He was pressed no further by his party and with the MSM in their pockets, that's where the story ended.

I believe the dems have enjoyed a double standard regarding conduct for so long, with the help of a willing main stream media, that they really do think they can lambast Foley for something I would wager many in their own party are or have done and not fear any fallout.


EODGUY