Democrat Party is Hypocritical on Foley Issue...

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Gerry Eastman Studds (born May 12, 1937) is a retired American politician, born in Mineola, New York. He served as a Democratic Congressman for Massachusetts from 1973 until 1996. He was the first openly homosexual member of the U.S. Congress and, more generally, the first openly gay national politician in the U.S.

Studds is remembered chiefly for his role in the Congressional page sex scandal in 1983, when he and Representative Dan Crane were censured by the House of Representatives for separate sexual relationships with a minor – in Studds's case, a 1973 relationship with a 17-year-old male congressional page.

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."

As the House read their censure of him, Studds turned his back 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.

...Unless it's a Republican during an election, then it's the whole world's business!

 

[OrnotBitwise]

Foley's homosexuality isn't the issue, nor was Studds'. The issue at hand is pedophilia. It would have been just as wrong had they gone after female pages, or if a female representative had pursued male pages.

Studds was wrong back then.

 

[Prakosh]

Foley's homosexuality isn't the issue, nor was Studds'. The issue at hand is pedophilia. It would have been just as wrong had they gone after female pages, or if a female representative had pursued male pages.

Studds was wrong back then.

It's the same old "R" party tactic--Democrats did it too...Even if they have to go back to the Civil War to find an example the Republicans will and say the Democrats did it too. Nothing else matters just find a Democrat that did something like this at some point in time. Even if it isn't even close, just find one..

 

[Cypress]

Gerry Eastman Studds (born May 12, 1937) is a retired American politician, born in Mineola, New York. He served as a Democratic Congressman for Massachusetts from 1973 until 1996. He was the first openly homosexual member of the U.S. Congress and, more generally, the first openly gay national politician in the U.S.

Studds is remembered chiefly for his role in the Congressional page sex scandal in 1983, when he and Representative Dan Crane were censured by the House of Representatives for separate sexual relationships with a minor – in Studds's case, a 1973 relationship with a 17-year-old male congressional page.

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."

As the House read their censure of him, Studds turned his back 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.

...Unless it's a Republican during an election, then it's the whole world's business!

Dixie, its good nett-iquette to cite the link, where you cut and pasted from.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerry_E._Studds


Studds is remembered chiefly for his role 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 a minor – in Studds's case, a 1973 relationship with a 17-year-old male congressional page. The relationship was consensual, but violated age of consent laws and 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."

As the House read their censure of him, Studds turned his back 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.

 

[LadyT]

You're late Dixie. We were expecting you to have your michael savage talking points straightened out a little earlier.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

There is also the case of Mel "I hit the Jackpot" Reynolds, the Democrat congressman indicted for having sex with underage girls in 1995... Clinton pardoned him in 2004.


Of course, Democrats always tend to forget about their own past scandals.

 

[TRGLDTE]

Foley's homosexuality isn't the issue, nor was Studds'. The issue at hand is pedophilia. It would have been just as wrong had they gone after female pages, or if a female representative had pursued male pages.

Studds was wrong back then.

Also at issue is whether persons who knew that this conduct was taking place covered it up or ignored it. The cover-up usually nets more convictions and jail time than the crime.

 

[Prakosh]

Also at issue is whether persons who knew that this conduct was taking place covered it up or ignored it. The cover-up usually nets more convictions and jail time than the crime.

And don't forget the investigation into who leaked it to the press, because they had to know and they saved it until the election so they are guilty of cover-up and leak. Which of course makes them twice as guilty as any "R" might be...

 

[uscitizen]

Yep Prak, that horrible little victim might have leaked it...

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

You're late Dixie. We were expecting you to have your michael savage talking points straightened out a little earlier.

No "talking points" here, it looks like Prickish has that aspect covered, he has blanketed the board with them. I just think it's interesting to note, Stubbs and Crane were censured, but didn't resign, and Bill pardoned Reynolds.... yet we hear all of this fake outrage about "the poor children" in this case. It poignantly illustrates the absolute hypocrisy of the Democrat Party.

Foley resigned, as well he should, and Republican leadership immediately called for an investigation, as well they should. From what they have disclosed, the less agregious emails, they knew about, not the more damning instant messages... but someone DID know about those, and deliberately timed their release for maximum political advantage..... hmmmm... wonder who that could've been? We'll find out before the elections, that's for sure.

I hear Foley has checked into rehab for alcohol abuse, I wonder if Maine thinks Foley's drinking might have caused him to be a child predator? Hmmmm???

 

[OrnotBitwise]

Also at issue is whether persons who knew that this conduct was taking place covered it up or ignored it. The cover-up usually nets more convictions and jail time than the crime.

True, dat. Personally, I'm trying not to form an opinion on that point yet. Too much entirely predictable sound and fury. One can't be certain that any of it signifies anything.

 

[OrnotBitwise]

Interestingly, CNN.com has an "analysis" piece on the Studds case right now. It seems that conservatives are indeed more vulnerable to this sort of scandal than are liberals.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/02/greenfield.foley/index.html

 

[Cancel7]

Interestingly, CNN.com has an "analysis" piece on the Studds case right now. It seems that conservatives are indeed more vulnerable to this sort of scandal than are liberals.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/02/greenfield.foley/index.html

I suppose it's like a democrat, pro-war politician, in a blue state (let's use Conn, just for fun) paying a bigger price and being more vulnerable to charges of war-mongering than a Republican in Alabama.

Your base is your base. If you cater to them to get you to the dance, you better dance eventually.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

When Studds was censured, the Democrats gave him a standing ovation! Republicans were told to sit down and shut up, it was his personal life and none of our business. Democrat leadership is on record saying, this should not be a reason for him to not be able to serve as a Congressman, he was subsequently re-eleted to his seat.

Remember now... Studds was indicted for HAVING SEX with an underage page... not simply sending graphic messages. So, we can see the clear double-standard on part of the Democrat Party. Keep this in mind as you watch them fake their moral outrage.

 

[OrnotBitwise]

When Studds was censured, the Democrats gave him a standing ovation! Republicans were told to sit down and shut up, it was his personal life and none of our business. Democrat leadership is on record saying, this should not be a reason for him to not be able to serve as a Congressman, he was subsequently re-eleted to his seat.

Remember now... Studds was indicted for HAVING SEX with an underage page... not simply sending graphic messages. So, we can see the clear double-standard on part of the Democrat Party. Keep this in mind as you watch them fake their moral outrage.

Not so. The page with whom Studds was involved was not underage. Therein lies the difference.

Now, I grant that he was so young as to make the affair . . . highly distasteful. Age of consent be hanged: when the kid is that much younger the relationship is almost always exploitive. It wasn't illegal, however.

 

[maineman]

I love it when Dixie has to dig back into the vaults nearly a quarter of a century to point out the "hypocrisy" of the left.

As if the American people will make THAT connection!

Hey Dixie.... you're gonna renege on the bet, aren't ya?

Speaker Pelosi will get to open the roll call vote to impeach Dubya AND Cheney for the debacle in Iraq...and guess what? Can you say PRESIDENT PELOSI?????

lol

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Not so. The page with whom Studds was involved was not underage. Therein lies the difference.

Now, I grant that he was so young as to make the affair . . . highly distasteful. Age of consent be hanged: when the kid is that much younger the relationship is almost always exploitive. It wasn't illegal, however.

No, it was so. The page in question, was 17. That is a minor, and it was illegal. No formal charges were ever filed by the minor or his parents, so the issue was glossed over, to the resounding ovations of the "caring and concerned" Democrat Party.

I notice Maine has weighed in on this... someone tell me if he holds to the same excuse for Foley as he held for himself, that the booze made him do it. Somehow, I figure he has figured out how to condemn Foley for the kind of behavior he excused himself over.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

There is also the case of Mel "I hit the Jackpot" Reynolds, the Democrat congressman indicted for having sex with underage girls in 1995... Clinton pardoned him in 2004.


Of course, Democrats always tend to forget about their own past scandals.

We also have this one, Ornut... A Democrat Congressman having sex with 14-year-old Catholic School Girls.... to which he replied on tape... Damn, I hit the jackpot! Now, this Democrat couldn't continue to serve because he went to prison, and I think they had a rule about serving from prison back then, but in 2004... Clinton pardoned him.

So, when you hear all this feigned indignation and selective moral outrage, emerging from Democrats, who are taking every opportunity to over-exaggerate and blow everything out of proportion, citing their "concerns for the children," and heaping on the wild accusations... remember what happened with Studds, remember what happened with Reynolds, remember Barney Frank's boy lover running a brothel out of Barney's home, remember the cigar-loving 54-year-old and his 23-year-old intern, and ask yourself this... do you think the Democrats give one whit about the ethics or the children?

If Foley were a Democrat, he wouldn't have resigned, you pinheads would be accusing Karl Rove of lying, and it would take until November of 2008, to find out the whole truth about what was going on. In the meantime, he would win re-election, and end up getting a slap on the wrist, or a pardon from Hilary in the end. In another couple of presidential cycles, he could run for president!

Democrats don't give a rat's ass about the "sex scandal" part either! They know it hits republicans hard, because of the moral standards of the religious right, and they will act like they really are shocked by this. The truth is, they knew this for 3 years, and threw it out a month before an election, for maximum political advantage. I think THAT needs to be investigated, while Mr. Foley seeks the professional help he obviously needs.

 

[Cancel7]

We also have this one, Ornut... A Democrat Congressman having sex with 14-year-old Catholic School Girls.... to which he replied on tape... Damn, I hit the jackpot! Now, this Democrat couldn't continue to serve because he went to prison, and I think they had a rule about serving from prison back then, but in 2004... Clinton pardoned him.

So, when you hear all this feigned indignation and selective moral outrage, emerging from Democrats, who are taking every opportunity to over-exaggerate and blow everything out of proportion, citing their "concerns for the children," and heaping on the wild accusations... remember what happened with Studds, remember what happened with Reynolds, remember Barney Frank's boy lover running a brothel out of Barney's home, remember the cigar-loving 54-year-old and his 23-year-old intern, and ask yourself this... do you think the Democrats give one whit about the ethics or the children?

If Foley were a Democrat, he wouldn't have resigned, you pinheads would be accusing Karl Rove of lying, and it would take until November of 2008, to find out the whole truth about what was going on. In the meantime, he would win re-election, and end up getting a slap on the wrist, or a pardon from Hilary in the end. In another couple of presidential cycles, he could run for president!

Democrats don't give a rat's ass about the "sex scandal" part either! They know it hits republicans hard, because of the moral standards of the religious right, and they will act like they really are shocked by this. The truth is, they knew this for 3 years, and threw it out a month before an election, for maximum political advantage. I think THAT needs to be investigated, while Mr. Foley seeks the professional help he obviously needs.

LOL

Oh you guys kill me. Five years of election year dirt, Bin Laden tapes suddenly "appearing" a week before the election, red alerts, phony mushroom clouds, imminent biological attacks coming! and not a peep out of you.

And now your faux "outrage" that a dem, MIGHT have pulled a well-timed release of some dirt. Of which you have absolutely zero evidence, but that never stopped any of you.

I have news for you, I hope the dems have finally pulled a fast and dirty one. It's the only way they will ever win over these evil shits. And I don't consider hitting on a 16 year old to meet the definition of "pedophile" exactly, I do consider it low, and taking terrible advantage.

But I don't care. You got into bed with the religious right and they brought you a long way, and while they were at it nearly destroyed this country, and in fact, might still have succeeded at that.

And now you freaking hypocrites have to answer for the sexual sleazes and closet cases in your own party, and you have to answer for it to those same nut cases ya'll got on your knees to ass kiss to.

And it may lose you the Senate, and will probably lose you the house.

Well, boo freaking hoo.

Let me cry about that in between crying over the tens of thousands dead, and the additional tens of thousands facing life altering injuries like having their faces burned off. Let me cry about it in between crying about the end of checks and balances, the desecration of our Constitition, and the nutballs you freaks installed on our courts that we'll all have to live with for a generation.

Or better yet, how about I don't cry over it, and just laugh in your stupid face.

 

[NOVA]

Mel Reynolds received a commutation of his six-and-a-half-year federal sentence for 15 convictions of wire fraud, bank fraud & lies to the Federal Election Commission. He is more notorious; however, for concurrently serving

five years for sleeping with an underage campaign volunteer.

So all that remains is the end game....