The freepers are milking the Gerry Studds incident to death

It seems to be their only defense. Yet the Democrats are hypocrits, the party of gays, the party of pedophiles because of this one incident that happened in 1973.

:eyes:

the Repubbies are the more recent party of gays and pedophiles.

n/t

Looking at my keyboard, I realize it's just a typo, but you might want to edit.

:)

Vote for us; we're as bad as they are?

:spray: Sure sounds like it. :rofl:

versus the list of hundreds of
republican crooks, pederasts and evil-doers.

Nuff said.

(and what the heck was their point anyway ???? )

n/t

has hung on to the Gerry Studds story like a pit bull.

mass group of lying hypocrites in the history of american politics and it's not going away

they did not hide it and allow it to continue

although, yes, the freshman Representative was 36 and the page was 17 and there was a power disparity as well as an age disparity. Studds himself said it never should have happened. It was completely consensual, something that seems to have escaped notice. Foley was sexually harassing unwilling pages who were creeped out by the attention.

Ten years later, when Crane was being censured for an affair with a female page, he was the first member of Congress to be censured for improper sexual relations with a teenager. They dug up the 10 year old Studds affair in order to appear balanced and nonpartisan.

The page in question did not want to testify about the affair. He later appeared with Studds at a press conference and said the two had remained friends long after the affair had ended, that there was none of the resentment or psychic fallout that accompanied a predator/target relationship because the affair had been completely consensual. The page was above the age of consent at the time.

Consent is something the GOP never considers, since apparently people in that party have never experienced either giving or receiving it.

That is how the Studds case is different.

Congress got wind of it and he appeared at that press conference.

is that Studds and the page actually had sex. I don't know that anyone is alleging that of Foley (yet anyway).

I've been wondering how Studds could have been re-elected following the censure, but it makes a bit more sense given that the actual conduct occurred 10 years earlier. I think it's also relevant that all this occurred prior to the internet (and its attendant predator laws) AND the establishment of sexual/workplace harassment laws.

and such things were viewed very differently.

Studds apologized, said it should never have happened and that it never happened again.

He was re elected becuase he worked hard on issues his district cared about.

I know. I was in his district and I don't regret a single vote I cast for him.

He said it was no one's business but his own. When he was censured, he stood and turned his back on the chamber as an act of defiance.

and he did apologize eventually. He just didn't do it to the House.

According to this article, he eventually admitted to an error in judgment but did not apologize.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/05/15/politics/main695300.shtml?cmp=EM8705


And, if Foley simply apologized to his district, would that be sufficient? Not to me.

Trying to slice and dice the situation plays into the repubs hands. Defending Studds because it was consensual, or because it occurred years earlier than when it came to light is a mistake. Dan Crane's relationship with a 17 year old female page occurred three years before the matter came to light and there is no indication that it was a non-consensual relationship.

Look, from the perspective of the public at large, members of Congress who are in their 30s or 40s should not be engaging in sexual relationships with high school juniors who are entrusted to their care as pages. Period.

The answer to the repubs on Studds is to defang them by agreeing with them: yes, Studds and Crane acted improperly and violated the trust of the public by engaging in relationships with high school juniors. They both should have been forced to resign. If a Democrat was found to have acted improperly towards any page -- and there is absolutely no evidence of such -- that Democrat also should resign. And if the Democratic leadership were shown to have covered up such actions by another Democrat -- and again there is absolutely no evidence of such a thing -- those leaders should lose their positions as well. End of story.

inappropriate and regrettable. That's one of the big differences. He also didn't hide in rehab to avoid the press. He also didn't have higher ups trying to cover his ass.

Pointing out the difference in these things as consent vs. lack of consent is absolutely essential. Also pointing out the difference is the GOP coverup is essential.

It's become the coverup, you see, not the dirty emails to unwilling teenagers.

Studds defiantly defended his behavior, refusing to acknowledge anything inappropriate about it. Indeed, when the House voted to censure him, he stood with his back to the chamber.

The point is that the sentiment among parents in this country (a very large block of voters) there is no defense -- including consensuality -- for a 30 plus year old member of Congress engaging in a sexual relationship with a high school junior. Arguing that there is a fool's errand. Its pretty clear from some of the IM's that the "relationships" that some pages had with Foley also might be characterized as consensual (and it is my understanding that Studds also was found to have sought out, unsuccessfully, relationships with other pages).

As my post indicated, our response should be (a) Studds, a Democrat, and Crane, a Republican, engaged in similar and equally inappropriate behavior by becoming involved with pages entrusted to their care and both should have been forced from office and the same should happen to any member of Congress, of either party found to have abused that trust; (b) the Republican leadership bears sole responsiblity for covering up the Foley situation.

trying to make an argument that what Foley did was wrong, but the Studds matter was a "private situation" or "wasn't as bad" is, IMHO, a loser. If you concede that the act was inappropriate for ANYONE, then you can focus on the issue of how the different parties handled it.

n/t

The scandal broke in 1983.

yeah, that was my recollection....

point is the freeps don't care about anything except that Studds picked his nose and flicked it at party leadership and served until 1996.

and we are bitch-slapping fat denny for not being a "leader"

gotta admit, wee bit o' hypocrisy here

<crickets>

I thought so.

Somone needs to troll over there and post the huge list of Repugnicans who have been arrested for child predatory and other kinky sexual crimes. These people are some real sick bastards.

They need to hang onto the gay angle here as that's red meat that allows these hyena to play the "they did it, too game" and attempt to connect gays and pedophiles. This seems to be what people like Dobson and Perkins are trying to give the GOOP shelter with.

These hyocrites have spun themselves 180 on this...for some this is clearing heads for the first time in years...for other, it's scrambling what little grey matter functions within.

That would be a big fat NO. This is less about Foley, and much more about the GOP covering up for a pederast who's harassing underage boys, allowing it to continue.

Or of former Senator Bob Packwood, who was literally chasing women around the desk in his Senate office?

Boy, those clowns certainly have selective memories. :eyes:

The intial incident happaned in 1973, but wasn't found out till 1983.

So any "crime" would be past the statute of limitations. And unlike the current Foley business, there was no evidence that Dem leadership covered up the incident when it was happening.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerry_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.

if i had my way, i would hammer the hell out of the PROBABLE "money for ignorance" aspect.

kinda obvious that foley traded dollars for access to young boys.......

but that's just me being partisan

Same one that just said Has-turd should step down?

Or did Moon buy the Times after this broke?

I guess what I'm asking is, Did the Times run this as a warning to Bushco to get in line with Moon, or did Moon buy the paper in retaliation for them running this?

As conservative as ever.

look at the "LOG" in their own eye before pointing fingers at our "specks".

Dems are certainly not perfect however unlike so many of these hypocritical RW RepuliCONs most of us don't put on airs like we're "holier then thou".

Here's Republican Hypocrisy Revealed: http://www.armchairsubversive.com

... damn hypocrits. :puke:

Sounds like a porn star. ;)

I guess that comparing Foleyto the Monica thing isn't working. Dance suckers. Dance and spin, one two three...

So, what they seem to be saying is that it's okay for us to compare the GOP to the Nixon Administration. Hell, Bush's team even includes a few old Nixon cronies!

Second copy and paste this list and watch them run. :)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2295202

the Republican leadership's facilitating of Foley's pedophilia by way of his placement on a child-focussed committee, simply for another reliable Republican vote.