That is what every woman I’ve spoken to has said about the Foley mess.Ding, ding, ding - that's the alarm for "Wake up and smell the cappuchino" time.
“What were those guys thinking?”
It’s just that simple.
Why didn’t Hastert and Reynolds and Shimkus understand what every vigilant parent knows, that there is something very fishy about an older guy, any older guy, sending overly friendly e-mails to a 16-year-old, whether the 16-year-old is a boy or a girl.
Sure, the fundamental problem here is that Foley was sending those e-mails and, even worse, those even more explicit and disgusting text messages. But just as big a problem is that the House leadership was so dumb or disinterested that they really believed (at least, so they say) Foley’s alleged excuse that he was just “being friendly.”
Didn’t they ever wonder why a 52-year-old congressman needed a 16-year-old friend? A congressman whom almost everyone on the Hill thought was gay?
Would they have believed him and then just gone about their business if the one receiving the e-mails was their own son?
THAT's the real reason that parents of Boy Scouts object to gay leaders - because, other than parents, who wants to spend THAT much time with kids? Grown men generally want to spend time hanging out with people their own age. Fathers, OK. They have a vested interest in helping their sons become men. There's also that Dad-Son bonding thing.
Call me suspicious. I am. Of grown (at least in a chronological sense) men who want to be "buddies" with kids.
Leadership, that's a different thing. But no grown man (or woman) needs to have a teenage friend. At least, not as a "best friend".