16 total posts
Surprised there isn't a
Condoms for Pages program
(NT) Don't forget the MAP for the girls.
Major differences, Evie.
1) There was a full and immediate investigation, w/o a coverup.
2) Gerry Studds wasn't co-chair of a Committee specifically dealing with sexual predators against the young, and didn't make that activity the center of his electoral campaigns.
3) The laws and policies about sexual harrassment were very different then.
Beyond that, he was censured after all; the reason he stayed in Congress was that the voters kept re-electing him. The reason Foley resigned was that he knew he was history with his voters because of his own blatant hypocrisy, and he didn't want to take other Republicans down with him. BTW, personally, I would have voted to censure Studds. In fact, at that time I was homophobic, and probably would have voted for his ouster.
-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email email@example.com
The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!
Where's the coverup? Or is it the lack of evidence of the coverup a coverup?
and Studds was a creep that should have been OUT. Just shows that Dems are about NOTHING but politics
... there is no coverup here. #2 is actually irrelevant -- if you can't distinguish between Foley's actions (however disgraceful) and the kind of sexual predators he was fighting against, I feel sorry for you. Aren't you the one constantly reminding us of the sexual maturity of 16 year olds? #3, where has sexual harrassment even been alleged? He didn't do this with current pages.
Interesting tell there -- do you think only homophobes would vote to censure Studds? How about Foley?
You are correct, there are many differences. NO sex has even been alleged. NO impropriety with current pages has been alleged. The Republican resigned and has not been anything but repudiated by other Republicans. The Democrats don't work that way apparently. And oh! How about that Monica? You want to talk hypocrisy?? Your excuses for why that relationship was not sexual harrassment are excellent examples.
In fact, at that time I was homophobic
You are not entitled to your own "facts"..
such as those you state Dave.
"1) There was a full and immediate investigation, w/o a coverup."
Then why did it take "Tip" O'Neill so long to discover that Studds was propositioning male pages?
When the House censured Studds for his sex romp with a male page, Studds -- not one to be shy about presenting his backside to a large group of men -- defiantly turned his back on the House during the vote. He ran for re-election and was happily returned to office six more times by liberal Democratic voters in his Martha's Vineyard district. (They really liked his campaign slogan: "It's the outfit, stupid.")
Sure you were "homophobic" (likely because "laws and policies about sexual harrassment were very different then"), why don't you pull the other leg, it's got bells Dave.
You are not entitled to your own "facts"..
Where is your source for this sir?
"When the House censured Studds for his sex romp with a male page, Studds -- not one to be shy about presenting his backside to a large group of men -- defiantly turned his back on the House during the vote. He ran for re-election and was happily returned to office six more times by liberal Democratic voters in his Martha's Vineyard district. (They really liked his campaign slogan: "It's the outfit, stupid.")"
Why must the right ALWAYS pull out either Clinton or other past indiscretions in order to some how bolster the current Republican Titanic?
Personal notes but...
you might consider trying a search on some of it as I made the notes recently.
Why does the left want to ignore the past? Could it be because they are aware that they did not and do not behave honorably and their hypocracy is legion?
"their hypocracy is legion"
to which the republicans are quickly showing all of America just how much they are duplicitous and less than honorable
not to mention one or more GOING TO JAIL...
Going to jail?
you might want to take a long look at the number of Democrats (elected officials that is, we will ignore for now how most felons tend to vote a democrat ticket) who have been sent to prison for their actions in office before you start commenting on Republicans going to jail. While far too many Republicans have indeed been convicted of criminal activity it apparently would surprise you that they aren't even a serious contender for the record -- Democrats have that record securely nailed down (unenviable though it is).
Nobody is pointing to history to excuse Foley
He is ALREADY EX-Congressman Foley. And IF he had run for re-election, you can be damn sure the Republican voters of his district would have sent him packing.
History, however, IS instructive in pointing out the hypocrisy of the new found champions for ''the children'' who have to even distort the current situation in order to use it to political advantage. So far we have:
1. mixing up the relatively innocuous emails with the more salacious IM's
2. routinely referring to the recipients as pages and not ex-pages
3. routinely referring to the recipients as underage
4. referring to Foley unabashedly as a sexual predator (what happened to alleged? LOL)
5. ditto #4 using the term child molestor
6. ditto #4 using the term pedophile
7. blaming Republicans for the personal behavior of a sick, gay man.
And none of the false outrage and vilifying of Foley can cover up for the fact that these Democrats -- in many cases the exact same Democrats -- did NOTHING in the face of far worse in the past, and when the disgraced politicians ran for re-election, the Democrat voters return them time and again to office.
Because it shows how Democrats have dealt with worse
in their own house. They have turned their collective backside to problems, and done absolutely NOTHING.
Insisting that others do one thing, while you do the opposite is the classic definition of
H Y P O C R A C Y.
Foley vs. past democratic incidents
I have yet to see proof that Foley broke any laws.
Still, I am puzzled how raising democratic behavior from the past is constructive. How is this anything more than one party which is in trouble trying to avoid embarrassment by pointing fingers at another party?
In the best of all possible worlds what do you (well not ''you'' but republicans in general) want to accomplish by this?
Do you want democrats to concede political races in remorse for what happened 12 years ago?
Do you want comments by democrats re: this matter?
Do you want the past offending individuals to be brought up on current disciplinary hearings by congress?
Do you want any republican leaders who may have known about Foleys conduct for years to be released from any responsibility for failure to act?
What do you (and I'm asking you this time, Evie) want to see happen here? What does raising these past incidents hope to accomplish if not just to color voters opinions?
I want two things.
I want Democrats to stop politicizing the issue. Calls for action when, in the past, the only action Democrats took was to pardon the offender are hypocracy at its worst.
I want everybody to wait until more facts are known. What's the rush to judgement all about? People thought something was over, and gave someone else a break. We don't normally condemn such actions.
I also want people to stop demanding things they weren't willing to give. To a person, the Democrats backed a worse offender (Bill Clinton). Now they want a bystander (Hastert) to resign? It's unreal and dishonest. The worst part is that the Dems probably don't even know how bad their behaviour is.