The author seems to agree with one of Scott's positions - that it was not that big of an infraction. Legally that may be true. However, and in my opinion, you would not want to send your kids away from home to work with a guy who displays such behavior (I know I'm wasting my time here because you don't give a rat's ass what my opinion is. Having a discussion with you can be such a lonely experience.).

Also, in such a PR-intensive business as politics in a democracy, you do not want your side to be hit with a scandal like this. That makes it a very big deal. It would be very much in Democrats' interest for Foley to hang around in office fighting off the charges through the election. The hatchetmen were Republicans. If Foley had attempted to stay in office, the overwhelming voices for him to step down would have been Republican. For political reasons, not because Democrats are so fond of... whatever that is that Foley did. You call it "sexual deviation"?

As for my source, the first thing you have to do is get out of your head that I am anything like you and that my motives are anything like yours. I did not and would not offer it as proof of some thesis that all conservatives are delusionally paranoid defenders of child molesters. I think it is a very good example of a nut-case and I don't think that most Americans nor most conservatives nor most Republicans would share his beliefs. I certainly hope not, anyway. I did offer it up because such an obvious nut-case seems to share an awful lot of your (and Tech's and Scott's) positions, though he expresses them less diplomatically than you.