Does This Seem Like the Democratic Party You Know?

Well, the sharks have been lurking around, and the first one has taken his chunk out of the victim. What do I mean?

The first campaign television ad featuring disgraced former Rep. Mark Foley, R-Florida, hit the airwaves Friday in southern Indiana, as a Democratic challenger sought to link the ongoing page scandal to the Republican congressman.

Former Rep. Baron Hill, D-Indiana, criticizes Rep. Mike Sodrel, R-Indiana, for refusing to return $77,000 in campaign contributions "from the House leadership who knew about but did nothing to stop sexual predator Congressman Foley.

Here's the link to the ad.

So, the smear is to extend to ALL Republicans who took money from the leadership. In other words, just about ALL Republicans.

Sounds fair. So, anyone who is in any way connected to the incident, which, BTW, is as follows (according to Andrew Sullivan, well-known gay Republican):

The most infuriating aspect of the Mark Foley fiasco is that we're still unclear on what exactly it is we're infuriated about. This was not pedophilia: The pages involved were all above the legal age of consent in Washington, D.C. It wasn't exactly pederasty either, given that we have no evidence (at least not yet) of any actual sexual contact between two live human beings. Sexual harassment? It doesn't appear that, at the time of the now-infamous instant messages, the pages were in Foley's employ. The best phrase I have been able to come up with for Foley's transgression is "virtual pederasty," with a large dose of extremely creepy and abusive behavior toward younger, vulnerable people whose trust he clearly betrayed....

So, the actual behavior is not a crime, as far as can be determined. Hmm. Well, of course the Democratic Party is against ACTUAL SEX with a minor by a Congressperson, aren't they?

Well, no.

According to Wikipedia

Studds was a central figure in the 1983 Congressional page sex scandal, when he and Representative Dan Crane were censured by the House of Representatives for separate sexual relationships with minors – in Studds's case, a 1973 relationship with a 17-year-old male congressional page who was of the age of legal consent, according to state law at the time. The relationship was consensual, but presented ethical concerns relating to working relationships with subordinates.

During the course of the House Ethics Committee's investigation, Studds publicly acknowledged his homosexuality, a disclosure that, according to a Washington Post article, "apparently was not news to many of his constituents." Studds stated in an address to the House, "It is not a simple task for any of us to meet adequately the obligations of either public or private life, let alone both, but these challenges are made substantially more complex when one is, as I am, both an elected public official and gay." He acknowledged that it had been inappropriate to engage in a relationship with a subordinate, and said his actions represented "a very serious error in judgement."[1]

As the House read their censure of him, Studds turned his back on the speaker and members in the chamber and ignored them. Later, at a press conference with the former page standing beside him, the two stated that what had happened between them was nobody's business but their own.[1]

What Wikipedia fails to mention is the approval of the Dems:

When Studds announced his intention to ignore the uproar and to run for re-election, he received a standing ovation from the Democrats then in Congress. I remind you, this came after Studds had sexual intercourse with a page (though perhaps if he had text messaged the young man, you and they would be outraged - finally).

Probably not.

From Reason:

...as it turns out, the Mark Foley pedophilia sex scandal lacks two things: pedophilia and sex.