I agree wholeheartedly that this is being used for political reasons and I hate it also, but the Republicans haven't hesitated to use these things politically either in the past. It's ALL political these days. Down and dirty is the name of the game on both sides.
Personally, in Hastert's place I'd be suspicious of and try to keep someone like Foley (that is a gay) away from young people - course, I'd be called a bigot for that.
Perhaps I am misunderstanding you. Why would FOley's gayness be the determining factor? If indeed, you are removing him because he is gay and for no other reason, you're right, you probably would be called a bigot. Or do you mean if you had some additional indication, such as the unsolicited contact, and regardless of sexual persuasion, you would act? If any member of Congress is targeting pages, girls or boys, I would rather err on the side of protecting the young person, not the politician or the party, but it's not the gayness alone that should cause the suspicion. One of the past cases was of a Congressman and a female page. Sexual predators come in all stripes. Gayness doesn't make anyone a predator; lack of self-control, selfish personal gratification, self -indulgence,-- all those ego words--do. |
