Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Forget the Foley Scandal. Hit Them Where It Hurts

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-07-06 11:16 PM
Original message
Forget the Foley Scandal. Hit Them Where It Hurts
I'm not saying that the Foley scandal doesn't hurt the Republicans, and I'm not saying that the American public will or should forget the Foley Scandal, but it's time for Democrats to shift gears. The media has Foley gripped in their Pit Bull teeth and nothing is going to tear a ratings boosting story away from them before they milk it for every Nielson point. Foley will continue to generate headlines, which will continue to hurt the Republican Party with their values voter base. Democrats should monitor the story to keep Republicans from slithering out from under it with lies, but let the media lead, because Democrats are free to go for the Republican throat now. "Keeping Americans safe" is the Republican line of defense for holding the Hill in November, so that is where Democrats should attack, to throw them off balance, and off of their pre-scripted message. Let the media tie up Republicans with Foley, and while they do, Democrats can rightfully steal the Republican trademark issue right out from under them

If anyone had a shred of doubt about how Republicans planned to minimize their losses this November, ABC's "The Path to 9/11" should have laid that to rest. A sudden time warp engulfed our nation, and judging from the carefully choreographed and coordinated series of attacks Republicans revved up with it, Bill Clinton was on the ballot again. This election was always meant to be about Democrats being weak, and Republicans strong, that's why they smeared Clinton once again. Obscene as it seems to us, Republicans planned to campaign ON illegal wiretaps this Fall, and they planned to campaign ON torture, though of course they will never use those labels. According to them, all of that is just part of keeping Americans safe, and anyone who has qualms is a terrorist coddler, someone more interested in protecting terrorists than protecting America. That was their game plan. That is their play book. NOW is the time to rip it away from them.

Democrats running for Congress can hammer Republicans for making America less safe: by not putting the needed resources into true domestic security, by over extending and depleting our military, by neglecting our traditional alliances, by inflaming passions against the United States throughout the Islamic world, by increasing Al Quada recruitment, by providing Al Quada with the perfect training ground for a new generation of terrorists, BY BOGGING US DOWN IN IRAQ! The Iraq connection is key, always the linkage to Iraq, because Republicans no longer want to talk about Iraq.

That's why they accept, even embrace, a debate about illegal wiretapping, about the indefinite detention of those accused of being terrorists, and about the illegal torture of detainees. It's the 21st Century version of the Republican "tough on crime" message. Don't want to run afoul of the law? Then don't associate with the wrong people. Americans who don't associate with terrorists have nothing to fear from Bush's War on Terror, your phone won't get wiretapped, you won't be indefinitely "detained", only "terrorists" need worry. You got a problem with that? According to Republicans, then Bin Ladin supports you. Come the final ten days of this Fall campaign, watch for that theme in countless Bush and Cheney speeches, in countess Republican media ads, in countless Republican mailers, and from countless Republican shill talking heads and columnists.

But Democrats have the perfect opportunity now to head them off at that pass, to cut them off at the knees. Strike first and hard now while Republicans are back on their heels over Foley, and stay on our message. We don't have to win the public debate on this to win the Elections in November, we just have to hold our own, to muddy the clarity of the intended Republican message with our counter message. If we can fight them to a draw on their chosen issue, Democrats win going away. Want to sleep safe in your beds at night, we should say, then throw the inept Republicans bums out. They were wrong about Iraq, they are wrong on fighting terror. We are less safe today than we were on September 12th 2003. On September 12th America was unified, on September 12th the sympathy of the world was with us, on September 12th our military was strong and recruitment for it was up, and Americans faced the coming conflict in Afghanistan with determination and a common purpose.

Democrats were handed all the ammunition that we need in the National Intelligence estimates. The threat to America from terrorists is greater now because of Bush's war in Iraq. It's time for Democrats to open fire on this Administration with that finding and not let up until November 9th, when America will wake up to new Democratic leadership.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-07-06 11:24 PM
Response to Original message
1. Foley hurts more.
Because it hurts the diehard base.

Everyone else is already aware, according to the polls, that the Republicans have proved worthless on defense as well as aggression.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-07-06 11:32 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. But Democrats shouldn't be the ones hitting Republicans there
Edited on Sat Oct-07-06 11:40 PM by Tom Rinaldo
Foley is a Republican self inflicted wound and we are better off not being seen in the same picture holding a gun. And the damage from this scandal, massive as it may be, is mostly already done. If there is further damage it will be from new media revelations, not new charges made by Democrats agaisnt Republicans over it.

I don't deny that Foley has hurt the Republicans badly, but I suspect Foley will mostly be off the front pages in one or two weeks, and Republicans will try to regroup what they can under their tattered tired but time tested cloak of National Security. At this point who can say, if they play it perfectly and we don't counter effectively, maybe it will save them a few seats, and those are seats that we need to win.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Erika Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-07-06 11:41 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. Foley will not be off the front pages
His computers have been confiscated, as well as other D.C. members. He's under a full scale investigation.

The GOP did it to themselves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-07-06 11:49 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. Those front pages will self generate then
Assuming there are enough new developments or leaks about the investigation to write about, the media will run with this on their own. I think too much attention to this from Democratic candidates can hurt us, because it can look like we are playing politics with the lives of children, which is exactly the charge that is hurting Republicans the most, the cover up by Republican leadership was done for partisan reasons. We should not let it seem that Democratic anger is being generated for political reasons also, that is what Republicans are trying to say already.

Regardless, Republicans WILL try to shift the public debate back onto NAtional Security. The only question is how far they can get with that effort, and how successful they can be at defining National Security on their own terms.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Erika Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 12:05 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. The Democrats will not use the pages
Edited on Sun Oct-08-06 12:06 AM by Erika
The W DOJ will.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 01:41 AM
Original message
Oh yes he will, and he'll be off the ones in the cloakroom, on the
floor of the House, and the back ones too!!! After all, he's in REHAB!!! Those pages are safe for now!!!

Sorry, couldn't resist......
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 12:02 AM
Response to Reply #2
7. Seen any signs of them "playing it perfectly"?
Because I haven't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 12:07 AM
Response to Reply #7
10. No, but overconfidence in politics is often deadly
And the mid term elections aren't scored like a baseball game, where winning by one run or winning by ten runs makes no difference. How well WE play the game this month will effect the amount of seats that we win, and every seat we can pick up is important, and can be counted as a seperate win. We can use all we can get.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 12:17 AM
Original message
True that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jack Rabbit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 12:17 AM
Response to Reply #2
13. While some of what you say is true . . .
While some of what you say is true, the Foley scandal is as bad as it is because of a lack of leadership. That is a valid campaign issue for the Democrats.

The focus of the anger should not be on Mr. Foley, who can't help what he is and let's hope he now gets the help he needs, but on Speaker Hastert, who calculated that keeping Foley in the House was more important than the safety of teenage boys who came in contact with Foley as the result of being selected to serve in what is supposed to honorable and rewarding experience.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 11:49 AM
Response to Reply #13
21. Yes it is a valid issue.
so is the failure of leadership of the Bush Administration in the World, which plays out on a much more profound level and which directly is touching the lives of millions of Americans who have or know friends and family in the military, who face the real prospect of being killed or maimed in Iraq or Afghanistan.

I never deplored the fact that the media is covering Foley, and there certainly are simple and to the point things Democrats should say about the responsibility of House leadership to keep the Page program safe for all participants. But our focus should stay on Iraq and the failure of Republican leaders to protect ALL Americans. We are in danger of being seduced by Foley into losing that focus.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 11:12 AM
Response to Reply #2
18. I agree - that is a self-propelling story. Dems need to emphasize the 9-11
and Iraq lies from Rice, the WH and the 9-11 commissioners who covered for them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 01:38 AM
Response to Reply #1
14. I say stick with Foley. Many voters are stupid, and we need to reach
their dumb, salacious asses.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 10:45 AM
Response to Reply #14
16. I predict the Foley story will slowly morph toward an increasingly
anti-gay sub text; Gay = Pedophile. Not overtly in high profile media, but in the underground way that Republicans tend to run their smear campaigns. I think it will go along these lines: "Which political party is most openly pro Gay? The Democrats. Who supports Gay marriage, adoption, and Boy Scout Troop leaders? The Democrats. Who do you believe will better protect your 10 year old son from gay pedophiles? The Democrats? Not a chance, only Republicans can stand up to them. Republicans will clean their own house now, Democrats will never do that, Democrats need the Gay vote."

I would love to be proved wrong about this, but I expect it. Given enough time Republicans will mold the Foley scandal to play into their own anti-gay campaign strategy. It is how they will try to recover some lost ground with their right wing Christian "values" voter base.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wednesdays Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 08:53 AM
Response to Reply #16
26. They would only be preaching to the choir
The ones who fall for that kind of logic won't be swayed by anything that comes down the pike, so I wouldn't worry too much about them. This is a battle mostly for the "independent" 1/3 of the electorate, and I think at the moment they're avoiding the Repugs like the plague.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spag68 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-07-06 11:38 PM
Response to Original message
3. scandal
While everyone was looking at this creeps resignation, that same day day another union busting decision by the SCOTUS was handed don, depriving 10 to 30 million workers the right to unionize. The war rages, the torture still makes us look like criminals, we are spied on and ripped off in every way . this is bush corp at it's worst.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 12:06 AM
Response to Reply #3
9. They were NEVER going to look at that decision. Never.
It requires too complex an explanation. It has no sex, no immediate bloodshed, nothing to attract an audience.

THANK GOD FOR THE SEX SCANDAL. If we get in on the scandal, we change the laws.

I hate it when people don't show proper respect for the sex scandal. It's a blessing from God. Treat it like one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Erika Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 12:11 AM
Response to Reply #9
11. Foley did it up good. A sex farm for pages before they turn 18
IM them for foreplay a few years before they turn 18.

He did it up good.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 12:16 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. Yes, he did.
We have so much to be grateful for.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jack Rabbit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-07-06 11:41 PM
Response to Original message
5. Take no prisoners
This is war.

We should hit them whatever works.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 01:41 AM
Response to Original message
15. We have to work ALL angles...and in particular not cede national
security!

Political debates between politicos are in full swing, and certainly the Foley thing will not be front and center of those debates. Democrats have to be ready to hit hard on Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea and Iran. They have to talk about the incompetence and lies; the money spent and lives lost; the damages to allies; the lack of real action taken on port and homeland security; and the fact that this President and his party were not too long ago willing to sell off our port security to the highest bidder.

If Democrats fail to make these points, then they should not be running for office.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 11:23 AM
Response to Reply #15
19. Watching the McCaskill vs. Talent debate on MTP, I believe that
we cannot be a Johnny One Note party. Foley is added fodder, but does not win the war. That debate today on television showed exactly what the issues are, and how the GOP changes the language of certain issues to make them be what they are not.....so, Iraq is the crowning jewel as long as the Democrats have the right words to combat this haebus Corpus bullshit that the Republicans are trying to sell; cause it's really about Torture, and Democrats must say so. Same thing with the spying on our citizen bill disguised by Republicans as Intelligence gathering on Terrorists. The GOP is using deceitful framing, like they always have, and Democrats must, must unframe the lies and use the correct words that signifies these issues....which is illegal wiretapping of citizens without due process and utilizing dehumanizing torture and treating foreign and domestic prisoners like animals.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hijinx87 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 11:04 AM
Response to Original message
17. the foley scandal is doing damage.

I say ram it home until it plays out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 11:42 AM
Response to Reply #17
20. Of course it is doing damage, and it's the media's baby now
Let them run with it. But that will run it's course and the big issues that should define the debate between the Republicans and Democrats will still remain in place when it does. Republicans never stop framing National Security to their advantage, but rarely are Democrats handed a golden opportunity like Bob Woodward's book to challenge Republicans on their own turf so effectively. Democrats should let the media run with Foley. We should run with Woodward. His book selling tour is going to run it's course soon also you know, we only have a few weeks to capitalize on this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 02:46 PM
Response to Original message
22. How to connect Foley to the Bigger Picture
I am shamelessly pushing Eric Massa's current Diary posted at Daily Kos. He truly nails it. It is called:

"NY-29:"They Were Warned and Did Nothing":Foley, 9/11, Iraq, etc."
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/10/8/15156/5676

For those who may not already know it, Eric Massa is the Democrat running to defeat a Republican incumbent in NY's 29th CD. He is an superb candidate and an excellent Human Being. Just read a few paragraphs of his Diary and you will see why.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClassWarrior Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 09:14 AM
Response to Reply #22
27. "They were warned - and did NOTHING."
That's excellent.

NGU.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
and-justice-for-all Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 08:01 PM
Response to Original message
23. Dems have addressed it, but I do not think .....
....they have beat this Foley mess to death. I have only heard Pelosi make a statement about it while people in the Repuke circle have been blameing everyone and everything other then Foley.

Tony Perkins is a fucking worthless piece of shit, every given the chance I would beat his ass. Just because Foley is a pedophile does not mean that Gay people are more likly to be pedophiles. Statisticly its not true: http://surge.ods.org/idle_other/myths_ab.htm

Date sent: Mon, 5 Jun 1995 11:00:39 -0700 (PDT)
From: GREG HEREK

The following is excerpted from "Myths about sexual orientation: A lawyer's
guide to social science research" by G.M. Herek, which appeared in the journal
Law and Sexuality, 1991, v. 1, pp. 133-172. Some references have been
deleted; see the original article for the full reference list.

Copyright <169> 1991 by Law & Sexuality: A Review of Lesbian and Gay Legal
Issues (Tulane Law School, New Orleans).

...

Myth #4: Homosexuals are more likely than heterosexuals to molest children
sexually.

Gay people often have been accused of preying on children. This is a
manifestation of a general cultural tendency to portray disliked minority
groups (e.g., Jews, Blacks) as threats to the dominant society's most
vulnerable members. When Anita Bryant campaigned successfully in 1977 to
repeal a Dade County (FL) ordinance prohibiting anti-gay discrimination, she
named her organization "Save Our Children," and warned that "a particularly
deviant-minded tea cher could sexually molest children." The number of
Americans who believe the accusation that gay men and women are child
molesters appears to be decreasing. Gallup poll data show that 42% of
Americans now would allow gay people to be elementary school teachers,
compared to 27% in 1977 (Colasanto, 1989). Nevertheless, many of the
remaining 58% probably continue to accept the stereotype.

When evaluating empirical research on child molestation, sampling issues
and problems of terminology must be c onsidered. Societal condemnation of and
criminal penalties for child molestation intensify the difficulties usually
encountered in attempting to draw representative samples of sexual
minorities. Most empirical studies have been conducted with convicted
perpetrators, thereby excluding those who were not prosecuted or convicted.
Consequently, we must rely on available data while recognizing that, because
of its sampling biases, the results do not necessarily reflect societal
patterns.

A second problem in evaluating empirical research on child molestation
concerns terminology. Sexual abuse of male children by adult men is often
referred to as "homosexual molestation," which implies that the perpetrator is
himself gay or has a homosexual orientation. Usually, however, the adjectives
"homosexual" and "heterosexual" refer to the victim's gender in relation to
that of the perpetrator, not to the latter's sexual orientation. For example,
Fisher (1969; Fisher & Howell, 1970) assessed the psychological needs of 50
"homosexual pedophiliacs" (who were categorized as such because they had been
convicted of a sexual offense against male children and no offenses against
female children) and 100 "heterosexual pedophiliacs" (who had been convicted
of a sexual offense against female children). However, no information was
provided about the offenders' adult sexual orientation or behavior.
Similarly, Marshall (1988) referred to the males in his sample who molested
boys as "homosexual molesters" (p. 273). In a personal communication to this
author, Marshall reported that only three of the seven men in his sample who
had molested boys could be considered gay or homosexual; the other four had
been heterosexually married. All of the 14 men who molested young girls were
considered by Marshall to have a heterosexual orientation.

The distinction between gender of victim and sexual orientation of
perpetrator is important because many child molesters have never developed the
capacity for mature sexual relatio nships with other adults, either men or
women. Recognizing this, Finkelhor and Araji (1986) proposed that discussions
of the sexual attractions of perpetrators should be conceptualized along a
continuum ranging in degrees from exclusive interest in children to exclusive
interest in adult partners. Similarly, Groth and Birnbaum (1978) categorized
child molesters as either fixated or regressed (see also Groth, Hobson, &
Gary, 1982). Fixation was defined as "a temporary or permanent arrestment of
psychological maturation resulting from unresolved formative issues which
persist and underlie the organization of subsequent phases of development"
(Groth & Birnbaum, 1978, p. 176); fixated offenders never developed an adult
sexual orientation. Regression was defined as "a temporary or permanent
appearance of primitive behavior after more mature forms of expression had
been attained, regardless of whether the immature behavior was actually
manifested earlier in the individual's development" (p. 177). Regressed
molesters can be adult homosexuals, heterosexuals, or bisexuals; what is
important is that they report sexual relationships with other adults, whether
men or women. In a sample of 175 adult males who were convicted in
Massachusetts of sexual assault against a child, Groth and Birnbaum (1978)
found that none had an exclusively homosexual adult sexual orientation. A
plurality of the men (83 or 47%) were classified as "fixated;" 70 others
(40%) were classified as regressed adult heterosexuals; the remaining 22 (13%)
were classified as regressed adult bisexuals. Of the last group, Groth and
Birnbaum observed that "in their adult relationships they engaged in sex on
occasion with men as well as with women. However, in no case did this
attraction to men exceed their preference for women....There were no men who
were primarily sexually attracted to other adult males..." (p.180).

Failing to distinguish between an offender's sexual orientation and the
gender of his victim can lead to overestimation of the proportion of gay men
among the population of child molesters. For example, Cameron (1985)
purported to review published data to answer the question, "Do those who
commit homosexual acts disproportionately incorporate children into their
sexual practices?" (p. 1227). He concluded that "at least one- third of the
sexual attacks upon youth are homosexual" (p. 1228) and that "those who are
bi- to homosexual are proportionately much more apt to molest youth" than are
heterosexuals (p. 1231). Cameron, however, assumed that all male-male
molestations were committed by homosexuals. A subsequent paper by Cameron and
others (Cameron, Proctor, Coburn, Forde, Larson, & Cameron, 1986) described
data collected in a door-to-door survey in seven U.S. cities and towns, and
generally repeated the conclusions reached in Cameron (1985). As before,
male-male sexual assaults were referred to as "homosexual" molestations (e.g.,
Abstract, p.327) and the perpetrators' sexual orientation apparently was not a
ssessed. Such confusions can affect subsequent research. Cameron's (1985)
equation of same-sex molestation with an adult homosexual orientation appears
to have led Freund et al. (1989) to study why "the proportion of sex offenders
against male children among homosexual men is substantially larger than the
proportion of sex offenders against female children among heterosexual men"
(p.115). However, Freund and his colleagues failed to find greater sexual
arousal among gay men (in their terminology, "and rophiles") when they were
shown visual images of young males than among heterosexual men ("gynephiles")
when they were shown visual images of young females.

Recognizing the many problems created by the lack of representative
samples and ambiguous terminology, we can critically evaluate the empirical
research relating to adult sexual orientation and molestation of children. In
this process, we must search for consistent trends in the results of empirical
studies that have adequately assessed and reported the sexual orientation of
perpetrators. It appears from these studies that gay men are no more likely
than heterosexual men to molest children (for an earlier review, see Newton,
1978).


NOTES

1. Sexual abuse by women appears to be relatively rare. When it occurs, it
typically involves a female accomplice who assists a perpetrator in procuring
victims or, occasionally, a woman who seduces a young male. Consequently, the
child molester stereotype is applied more often to gay men than to lesbians.

2. This assumption is puzzling in that it suggests inattention by the author
to the literature he himself claimed to have reviewed. For example, he cited
the Groth and Birnbaum (1978) study as evidencing a 3:2 ratio of
"heterosexual" (i.e., female victim) to "homosexual" (i.e., male victim)
molestations, and notes that "54% of all the molestations in this study were
performed by bisexual or homosexual practitioners" (p. 1231). As already
noted, however, Groth and Birnbaum (1978) reported that none of the men in
their sample had an exclusively homosexual adult sexual orientation, and that
none of the 22 bisexual men were more attracted to adult ma les than to adult
females. Cameron's 54% statistic does not appear anywhere in the Groth and
Birnbaum (1978) article, nor does Cameron explain its derivation. It also is
noteworthy that, although Cameron (1985) assumed that all male-male
molestations were committed by homosexuals, he assumed that not all
male-female molestations were committed by heterosexuals. He incorporated a
"bisexual correction" (p. 1231) into his data manipulations to increase
further his estimate of the risk posed to children by homosexual/bisexual
men. In the latter half of his paper, Cameron (1985) considered whether
"homosexual teachers have more frequent sexual interaction with their pupils"
(p. 1231). Based on 30 instances of sexual contact between a teacher and
pupil reported in ten different sources published between 1920 and 1982,
Cameron concluded that "a pupil would appear about 90 times more likely to be
sexually assaulted by a homosexual practitioner" (p. 1232); the ratio rose to
100 times when Cameron added his bisexual correction. This ratio is
meaningless because no data were obtained concerning the actual sexual
orientation of the teachers involved; as before, Cameron assumed that
male-male contacts were perpetrated by homosexuals. Further, Cameron's
rationale for selecting particular sources appears to have been entirely
idiosyncratic. He described no systematic method for reviewing the
literature, and appears not to have reviewed the voluminous literature on the
sexual development of children and adolescents. His final choice of sources
appears to have slanted his findings toward what Cameron described as "the
relative absence in the scientific literature of heterosexual teacher-pupil
sexual events coupled with persistent, albeit infrequent, homosexual
teacher-pupil sexual interactions" (p. 1232).

3. This study also suffers from severe methodological problems: The sampling
methods were not adequately described; the representativeness of the sample is
highly doubtful; the locations for dat a collection (Omaha , Los Angeles
, Denver , Washington , Louisville , Bennett , and
Rochester ) appear to have been selected solely on the basis of
convenience (see Brown & Cole, 1985, for a detailed critique). Additionally,
the response rate appears to have been unacceptably low, so that their sample
does not permit generalizations from the data to any larger population (Herek,
1991, note #10).

4. During the mid-1980s, Paul Cameron was labeled in the gay press as "th e
most dangerous antigay voice in the United States today" (Walter, 1985, p.28;
see also Fettner, 1985). In 1984, all members of the American Psychological
Association received official written notice that "Paul Cameron (Nebraska) was
dropped from membership for a violation of the Preamble to the Ethical
Principles of Psychologists" on December 2, 1983, by the APA Board of
Directors ("Notice: Persons dropped from membership," 1984). At its
membership meeting on October 19, 1984, the Nebraska Psycholo gical
Association adopted a resolution stating that it "formally disassociates
itself from the representations and interpretations of scientific literature
offered by Dr. Paul Cameron in his writings and public statements on
sexuality" (Nebraska Psychological Association, 1984). In 1985, the American
Sociological Association adopted a resolution which included the assertion
that "Dr. Paul Cameron has consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented
sociological research on sexuality, homosexuality, and lesbianism" ("Sociology
group criticizes work of Paul Cameron," 1985). Cameron's credibility was also
questioned outside of academia. In his written opinion in Baker v. Wade
(1985), Judge Buchmeyer of the U.S. District Court of Dallas referred to
"Cameron's sworn statement that 'homosexuals abuse children at a
proportionately greater incident than do heterosexuals,'" and concluded that
"Dr. Paul Cameron...has himself made misrepresentations to this Court" and
that "There has been no fraud or misrepres entations except by Dr. Cameron"
(p.536).

5. This is not to suggest that molestations of children by adult homosexual
men never occur. For example, Erickson, Walbek, & Seely (1988) reported that
86% of the men in their sample who had molested males under age 14 described
themselves as homosexual or bisexual. Unfortunately, Erickson et al. did not
report the actual number associated with this percentage (based on their data,
the number appears to be approximately 54 out of 229 child molesters st udied,
or 24%). Nor did they differentiate homosexual from bisexual men, or report
how many of the so-called homosexual men were heterosexually married (although
some apparently were, based on the authors' other comments). Of critical
importance is the fact that the authors did not determine if the self-
reported homosexual and bisexual men were involved in homosexual relationships
with adults of the same sex, or whether the self-applied labels were used to
describe the gender of their under-age victi ms (in Groth and Birnbaum's
<1978> terminology, whether they were fixated).


REFERENCES

Baker v. Wade, 106 Federal Rules Decisions 526 (N.D. Texas, 1985).

Brown, R.D., & Cole, J.K. (1985). Letter to the Editor. Nebraska Medical
Journal, 70, 410-414.

Cameron, P. (1985). Homosexual molestation of children/sexual interaction of
teacher and pupil. Psychological Reports, 57, 1227-1236.

Cameron, P., Proctor, K., Coburn, W., Forde, N., Larson, H., & Cameron, K.
(1986). Child molestation and homosexuality. Psychological Reports, 58,
327-337.

Colasanto, D. (1989, October 25). Gay rights support has grown since 1982,
Gallup poll finds. San Francisco Chronicle, p.A21.

Erickson, W.D., Walbek, N.H., & Seely, R.K. (1988). Behavior patterns of
child molesters. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 17 (1), 77-86.

Fettner, A.G. (1985, September 23). The evil that men do. New York Native,
pp. 23-24.

Finkelhor, D., & Araji, S. (1986). Explanations of pedophilia: A four factor
model. J ournal of Sex Research, 22 (2), 145-161.

Fisher, G. (1969). Psychological needs of heterosexual pedophiliacs.
Diseases of the Nervous System, 30, 419-421.

Fisher, G., & Howell, L.M. (1970). Psychological needs of homosexual
pedophiliacs. Diseases of the Nervous System, 31, 623-625.

Freund, K., Watson, R., & Rienzo, D. (1989). Heterosexuality, homosexuality,
and erotic age preference. Journal of Sex Research, 26 (1), 107-117.

Groth, A.N., & Birnbaum, H.J. (1978). Adult sexual orienta tion and
attraction to underage persons. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 7 (3), 175-181.

Groth, A.N., Hobson, W.F., & Gary, T.S. (1982). The child molester: Clinical
observations. Journal of Social Work and Human Sexuality, 1 (1/2), 129-144.

Herek, G.M. (1991). Stigma, prejudice, and violence against lesbians and gay
men. In J. Gonsiorek & J. Weinrich (Eds.), Homosexuality: Research
implications for public policy (pp. 60-80). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Marshall, W.L. (1988). The use of sexually explicit stimuli by rapists, child
molesters, and nonoffenders. Journal of Sex Research, 25 (2), 267-288.

Nebraska Psychological Association. (1984, October 19). Resolution. Minutes
of the Nebraska Psychological Association. Omaha: Author.

Newton, D.E. (1978). Homosexual behavior and child molestation: A review of
the evidence. Adolescence, 13, 29-43.

Notice: Persons dropped from membership in the American Psychological
Association. (1984). Internal communication from APA to all member s.

Sociology group criticizes work of Paul Cameron. (1985, September 10).
Lincoln (NE) Star.

Walter, D. (1985, October 29). Paul Cameron. The Advocate, pp. 28-33.

AUTHOR'S NOTE: Since this article appeared in 1991, another relevant paper has
been published. See: Jenny et al. (1994). Are children at risk for sexual
abuse by homosexuals? Pediatrics, v. 94 #1, pp. 41-44. (with accompanying
commentary).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 08:07 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. I will book mark your post.
I am sick to death of attempts made to link gay sexual orientation with pedophilia. We just had two heterosexual gunmen seize and kill girl students in schoolhouses, driven by their pedophile behavior. No one tries to link heterosexuality with pedophilia. We can't let attempts to slide the Foley debate in anti-gay directions stand uncontested.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-08-06 10:48 PM
Response to Original message
25. North Korea's Nukes is my case in point
Most American's don't feel personally threatened by a Congressional scandal. They should feel personally threatened by having the Bush team unchecked running our nation's military and foreign policy, though the Republicans will try to make that feel inverted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 12:30 PM
Response to Reply #25
28. Democrats really have to be more insightful than this.......
Foley can only do "so much". Those who don't understand this really are not as insightful as they want to believe when it comes to politics. This is a war, and winning one battle doesn't mean we win the war!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 12:40 PM
Response to Reply #28
29. We should never count on riding a scandal to victory
If that happens, well great, but the Democratic Party is the Party of sound vision and solid ideas, we see the big picture, we understand both the threats to and opportunities for Americans in today's world. The Republicans are pushing a totally discredited meme for America, and we should pound that home at every opportunity. We are the better way!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Sep 18th 2014, 11:20 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC