# Gerry Studds and Robert Bauman **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 6, 2006, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gerry-studds-and-robert-bauman/375537 "2006-10-06T19:17:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 18\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2006, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gerry-studds-and-robert-bauman/375537/21 "2006-10-08T03:05:17Z")
[QUOTE=Age Quod Agis] [Congressman Alexander’s office talked to the page (and his family)](http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/100506/news2.html).[The emails themselves weren’t shown to anyone outside of Alexander’s office](http://speaker.house.gov/library/misc/060930InternalReview.shtml), so they didn’t have any way to know about the other folks that may have been identified.I can’t say whether or not they talked to other individuals named in the emails because I haven’t seen any mention of those people in the news. Can you give me a cite to the emails themselves, or else a news story talking about the other individuals mentioned in the emails? [/quote] [the emails](http://abcnews.go.com/images/WNT/02-02-03b.pdf). What you see here is that the family contacted their Congressman, not that Hastert, on receiving the emails, contacted the three pages named in the emails. We’re not discussing what the family did; we’re discussing what Hastert did when he found out about the emails. > [@](#): > > You obviously see where they met with the head of the page program. I don’t see any mention of them meeting (or not meeting) with the page’s _direct_ supervisor. I apparently didn’t pay attention to the word “direct,” which was my mistake. However, I was under the impression that a wider investigation was conducted by the Clerk of the House and the head of the page’s office:So I was careless in not noting that your message referred to the page’s _direct_ supervisor. That word is important, because Congress hires someone to supervise the pages; obviously, Congresspeople don’t do it themselves. The person who supervises the pages is going to be far more familiar with their daily activities than a full-time politician will be; and if it comes to a politician’s interest that the program may have problems, they ought to talk to the person who spends their days dealing with the pages. That person isn’t the chairman of the Page program; it’s the page’s direct supervisor. Who wasn’t notified. At least, as near as I recall, from early stories; I am having trouble finding this out now. Can anyone link to those early stories, in which the page’s supervisor said she (I think it was a woman) never heard about these emails? Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2006, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gerry-studds-and-robert-bauman/375537/22 "2006-10-08T03:20:28Z")
Oy, that post was bad. First, the emails link is to the IMs; sorry! I’m having trouble finding a working link to the emails, but they were linked from one of the other threads. Second, [it appears that I was remembering incorrectly about the direct supervisor](http://www.dailymail.com/story/News/+/200610027/Capito+says+she+was+not+told+about+congressman's+e-mails/). It was another member of the Page Board who was not notified: > [@](#): > > Rep. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va., says she was not told about suggestive e-mails that a Florida congressman sent to a 16-year-old former Capitol page, even though she is one of three representatives who oversee the page program. > … > “There’s only three of us on the page board. I feel that we should have been informed,” Capito said. “I’m absolutely disgusted by what I’m hearing. I was caught totally unaware.” > … > Capito said she would have been very concerned if she had read those e-mails. > > “I don’t think it would pass the sniff test,” she said. “Even asking those questions – that is not normal between a 52-year-old adult and a 16-year-old. It’s not like they’re family friends or anything. I think it would raise some serious questions. But I wasn’t given that opportunity.” > > Late last year, Shimkus and former House Clerk Jeff Tandahl met privately with Foley to talk about the e-mails, but did not tell the other House Page Board members or launch an investigation. I’m still unclear whether their supervisor was told, or asked. It appears to me that the investigation consisted entirely of speaking to a couple of other Republican representatives, not of speaking to the other pages named in the emails, or carrying on a conversation with the page directly involved in the emails, or asking the folks who worked with the pages daily about the allegations therein (in a very general sense, e.g., “Have you ever felt that a representative was engaging in inappropriate communication with you? Please give specifics.”). The investigation seemed to consist entirely of getting Foley’s side of things. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d07c76/32.png) [@Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Age_Quod_Agis)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2006, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gerry-studds-and-robert-bauman/375537/23 "2006-10-08T03:27:40Z")
[QUOTE=XaMcQ] No, my point is that dragging up Democratic scandals from twenty years ago in an attempt to spread the slime around is stupid. [/quote] But _you_ dragged up a Republican scandal from twenty years ago in an attempt to spread the slime around. If it’s stupid to do that, I’d encourage you not to do that. > [@](#): > > And I think what Studds did was incredibly poor judgment, but it was not illegal, as 17 was the age of consent in his state at the time, according to the same article, if you had read it. Actually, it _was_ illegal. Homosexual sodomy was a crime in Massachusetts in 1983. That law was struck down in the case of GLAD v. Attorney General [in 2002](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_law). > [@](#): > > And you may be able to find a few examples of Dems claiming to be more moral than the Repubs, but you are being disingenuious as hell if you won’t admit that they are the ones who have been claiming that they are the party of God, the party of family, the party of values, blah, blah, blah ad nauseum. Both parties claim to be the party of [religous values](http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/01/20/sen_clinton_urges_use_of_faith_based_initiatives?mode=PF): > [@](#): > > Addressing a crowd of more than 500, including many religious leaders, at Boston’s Fairmont Copley Plaza, Clinton invoked God more than half a dozen times, at one point declaring, “I’ve always been a praying person.” [And here.](http://www.mirrorofjustice.com/mirrorofjustice/2006/06/jesus_not_a_rep.html) > [@](#): > > Jesus is Not a Republican [family values:](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_values) > [@](#): > > Although the term “family values” remains a core issue for the Republican party, in recent years the Democratic party has also used the term, though differing in its definition. For example, in his acceptance speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, John Kerry said “it is time for those who talk about family values to start valuing families.” Although the Democratic platform doesn’t specifically mention family values, pro-family policies historically supported by Democrats include [17] > > Support for families, including gay and lesbian families > Support for family planning and adoption incentives > Support for abortion rights, including policies that make it “safe, legal, and rare” > Support for education, including programs such as Head Start > Support for policies that reduce violence and drug use [and here](http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2006_07_31.html): > [@John Kerry](#): > > America believes in real family values and lives them; this Administration just talks about family values but does little to actually value families. In fact, both parties claim to represent pretty much the same values. They just differ on the best ways to achieve those values. > [@](#): > > They are they ones who want to control people’s rights to marry, reproduce(or not) and several other issues which a lot of people think they should keep their blue noses out of, just so they can grab that Evangelical vote. According to Republicans, it’s the _Democrats_ who want to enforce their beliefs on who can marry, reproduce, and several other issues on the majority of the country. > [@](#): > > Just what is your point, besides trying to make me look bad? I’m not trying to make you look bad. I’m just trying to point out that your points may not be as good as you think they are. ---
**Author:** ![Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d07c76/32.png) [@Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Age_Quod_Agis)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2006, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gerry-studds-and-robert-bauman/375537/24 "2006-10-08T03:34:44Z")
[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness] [That word is important, because Congress hires someone to supervise the pages; obviously, Congresspeople don’t do it themselves. The person who supervises the pages is going to be far more familiar with their daily activities than a full-time politician will be; and if it comes to a politician’s interest that the program may have problems, they ought to talk to the person who spends their days dealing with the pages. That person isn’t the chairman of the Page program; it’s the page’s direct supervisor. [/quote] I agree. I think it would have been better if they had spoken with the direct supervisor, or at least someone with day-to-day contact with the page. > [@](#): > > I am having trouble finding this out now. Me, too. But thanks for the links you’ve provided so far. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2006, 12:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gerry-studds-and-robert-bauman/375537/25 "2006-10-08T12:21:10Z")
[QUOTE=Age Quod Agis] I’d like to say that your admission that facts and accuracy aren’t important to you is refreshing. [/QUOTE] Cite or retraction. Your choice. Now, please. Oh, well, maybe that can wait until you tell us how you came to “know” the page-supervisor statement you presented as fact. Or admit you just repeated some talking point from your party’s “leadership” without any of the regard for the factuality that you claim to revere. What is it? What rep do you want for yourself here? ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2006, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gerry-studds-and-robert-bauman/375537/26 "2006-10-08T17:31:30Z")
The repub were willing to sacrifice a few teenage pages to keep it quiet. They were willing to lie to cover it. How does anything dems did justify that? Are they respoonsible for what they do or not? ---
**Author:** ![Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d07c76/32.png) [@Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Age_Quod_Agis)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2006, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gerry-studds-and-robert-bauman/375537/27 "2006-10-09T00:45:21Z")
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves] Cite or retraction. Your choice. Now, please. [/quote] Ohhhh, so scary! I’ll go ahead and cite the post that I quoted above. And [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=390901&page=1&pp=50) nicely illustrates it, too, since you insisted that Foley is a pedophile, despite the fact that the entire point of the OP was that Foley didn’t have sex with children, and thus, by definition, that term doesn’t apply. Your entire point was that accuracy was beside the point, and you certainly weren’t going to be bothered with it. > [@](#): > > Oh, well, maybe that can wait until you tell us how you came to “know” the page-supervisor statement you presented as fact. I’ve addressed that above. I’ve also admitted that what I said was partially inaccurate. I wonder if you’ve ever done that in your entire posting history. > [@](#): > > What is it? What rep do you want for yourself here? I’d rather not turn this into a Pit thread, but it’s worth mentioning that you don’t get to decide what kind of “rep” I have around here. I’ll let my posts speak for themselves, and yours can speak for you. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2006, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gerry-studds-and-robert-bauman/375537/28 "2006-10-09T03:44:53Z")
> **[Lawmaker Saw Foley Messages In 2000](https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/08/AR2006100800855.html)** > > Latest politics news headlines from Washington DC. Follow 2006 elections,campaigns,Democrats,Republicans,political cartoons,opinions from The Washington Post. Features government policy,government tech,political analysis and reports. Without comment. But of course, AQA would have us believe that Republicans have been nothing but forthcoming every day before it came out that they were being less than forthcoming. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2006, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gerry-studds-and-robert-bauman/375537/29 "2006-10-09T03:56:27Z")
[QUOTE=Age Quod Agis] I’ll go ahead and cite the post that I quoted above. [/quote] Does not support your statement. Try again. > [@](#): > > And [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=390901&page=1&pp=50) nicely illustrates it, too, since you insisted that Foley is a pedophile You didn’t even read my explanation of the change in the meaning of the word, did you? Or, if you did, you simply don’t give a damn. > [@](#): > > Your entire point was that accuracy was beside the point Another entirely iincorrect statement on your part. But you don’t give a damn about that any more than you give a damn about the factuality of blaming this latest Republican scandal on the Democrats, do you? > [@](#): > > you don’t get to decide what kind of “rep” I have around here I’m one of the many who do. How do you think you’re doing with it, btw? Does anyone seem to be fooled? Anyone at all? Rovian projection, loudly accusing others of your own failings, doesn’t work here, as you would know by now if you’d been keeping up. ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2006, 6:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gerry-studds-and-robert-bauman/375537/30 "2006-10-09T06:46:07Z")
**Moderator’s Note:** If the thread doesn’t stay with discussing the issues at hand rather than turning into a personal snipe-fest about the reputations and personal qualities of the posters involved, it won’t be moved to the Pit, it will be closed. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2006, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gerry-studds-and-robert-bauman/375537/31 "2006-10-09T16:07:22Z")
What about Thomas Jefferson.Wait that was long ago and irrelevant to todays scandal too.What about Kennedy? What has nothing to do with Foley. Ok lets get back to Foley. ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2006, 6:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gerry-studds-and-robert-bauman/375537/32 "2006-10-11T06:20:48Z")
> [@](#): > > **Age Quod Agis** : And this thread nicely illustrates it, too, since you insisted that Foley is a pedophile, despite the fact that the entire point of the OP was that Foley didn’t have sex with children, and thus, by definition, that term doesn’t apply. Apparently the term _pedophile_ may apply to Foley. One doesn’t have to engage in actual physical acts to be a pedophile. If a “child” was the object of his sexual desire, then he was a pedophile. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2006, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gerry-studds-and-robert-bauman/375537/33 "2006-10-11T16:01:49Z")
Irrelevant,he was at best a sexual harasser. At worst he made be a sexual predator. I do not think semantics of what he did and how it should be defined are important. What he did was wrong. Whether it happened in the past is also not part of this case. It was known by many that he was doing something ugly. Yhey coverered to stay in power. Sacrificing the well being of kids (young men) for political gain is disghusting and indefensible. ---
**Author:** ![Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d07c76/32.png) [@Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Age_Quod_Agis)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2006, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gerry-studds-and-robert-bauman/375537/34 "2006-10-11T23:42:59Z")
[QUOTE=Zoe] Apparently the term _pedophile_ may apply to Foley. One doesn’t have to engage in actual physical acts to be a pedophile. If a “child” was the object of his sexual desire, then he was a pedophile. [/QUOTE] Please visit the thread to which I linked. It pointed out that the word “pedophile” refers to _young_ children. Foley apparently had a thing for teens. ---
**Author:** ![Malienation](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4af34b/32.png) [@Malienation](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malienation)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2006, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gerry-studds-and-robert-bauman/375537/35 "2006-10-21T03:04:20Z")
[QUOTE=Age Quod Agis] Please visit the thread to which I linked. It pointed out that the word “pedophile” refers to _young_ children. Foley apparently had a thing for teens. [/QUOTE] Keep in mind that in Studds’ case, he wasn’t fucking someone underage: the age of consent at the time in DC was (is?) 16 years old. The kid was 17, and, AFAIK, said he willingly consented. Dunno about the law with Foley, he’s from Florida and the kid is likely to be as well. Also dunno how age of consent laws are involved in across state lines telecommunications, which seems likely in Foley’s case (Foley’s in DC, kid’s in Florida?). 😕 ---
**Author:** ![Triskadecamus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b19c9b/32.png) [@Triskadecamus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Triskadecamus)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2006, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gerry-studds-and-robert-bauman/375537/36 "2006-10-21T04:03:12Z")
Hastert lied to the American people. He happened to get caught lying about Foley. Other than that, Foley doesn’t matter. In fact, he (subsequent to being caught acting in a manner that many would choose not to have their elected representatives act) did the right thing. He resigned. Hastert acted in a manner that shows anyone who doesn’t share his world view that partisan power is the only thing that matters. Teenagers under the protection of the Congress of the United states don’t matter. Honesty to the Poeple of the United States doesn’t matter. Honesty to your subordinates doesn’t matter. Keeping your personal political power is the only thing that matters. No honor, no decency, no other set of values than party loyalty. And everyone in the Republican Party knows that about him, that’s why he is the he got chosen for his office. Tris ---
**Author:** ![Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d07c76/32.png) [@Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Age_Quod_Agis)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2006, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gerry-studds-and-robert-bauman/375537/37 "2006-10-22T03:03:31Z")
[QUOTE=Malienation] Keep in mind that in Studds’ case, he wasn’t fucking someone underage: the age of consent at the time in DC was (is?) 16 years old. The kid was 17, and, AFAIK, said he willingly consented. Dunno about the law with Foley, he’s from Florida and the kid is likely to be as well. Also dunno how age of consent laws are involved in across state lines telecommunications, which seems likely in Foley’s case (Foley’s in DC, kid’s in Florida?). 😕 [/QUOTE] You’re missing the point. Please visit the thread to which I linked. You’ll see that the term “pedophilia” does not apply to sex with teenagers. It only applies to sex with young children. So that term apparently isn’t applicable to either Baumann of Studds. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2006, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gerry-studds-and-robert-bauman/375537/38 "2006-10-22T15:48:05Z")
One might think that legal vs. illegal would matter, perhaps even just a little bit. That’s where age of consent comes into play, see? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gerry-studds-and-robert-bauman/375537.md?page=1)