WHO KNEW CONGRESSMAN FOLEY WAS A CLOSETED DEMOCRAT?
 

WHO KNEW CONGRESSMAN FOLEY WAS A CLOSETED DEMOCRAT?

This week's chit chat

http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi

In 1983, Democratic congressman Gerry Studds was found to have sexually propositioned House pages and actually buggered a 17-year-old male page whom he took on a trip to Portugal. The 46-year-old Studds indignantly attacked those who criticized him for what he called a "mutually voluntary, private relationship between adults."

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.

Does Congressman Foley's penchant for dirty internet interactions with underage boys remind you of anyone, Zippy?

Another stellar article by Ms. Coulter

Eh. More of a "throw everything against the wall and see if something will stick" than anything. A few inaccuracies and distortions in it as well, but why let truth get in the way of a good rant?

What was mistaken? I think we should nail Foley to the wall, but I do find it ironic how Democrats blame the GOP for not watchdogging their own, yet couldnt give a damn about the Studds thing when it happened. Bringing up shady acts by Democrats isn't a defense for what happened with Foley, its a response to the Democrat's use of this situation for political gain.

The following is a blog from a site better known for it liberary of Op-Ed Cartoons. Blogs IIRC are done monthly. And this one fits in here rather well.
http://www.cagle.com/news/blog/

Its hilarious how Dems are now saying they're immune to things like this, because they don't stand for anything in the first place. "We never claimed to be moral people" is not a great slogan.

Everytime I see that username I want to rant, so here goes:

Ann Coulter is one of the least attractive women I've ever seen who's been presented as a "pretty blonde haired woman with controversial viewpoints."

People had the nerve to say that she's frowned upon because she's a pretty woman with certain viewpoints. No, it's because she's a woman (minus the pretty) with an obnoxious way of expressing some over-the-top ideas for the purpose of becoming infamous and selling some books. "Let's throw everything and the kitchen sink in there and hopefully something will be relevant." She doesn't even present most of her viewpoints in an educated and sensical manner for her to be praised as the postergirl for anything.

Society definitely has lowered expectations.

Yeah, the Dems suck just like the Repubs do. But the Dems never said they don't stand for anything. They don't shove their morality stick down the throats of America and present themselves as picture perfect like the Repubs do. The Repubs say that everything is wearing down the moral and religious fabric of this country. Everything except for the things THEY haven't been caught doing. :)

All of them are going hell, anyway, so I suggest you all get off the bipartisan-bandwagonofbullcrap while you can.

Ann Coulter repeats the oft-made assertion that "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." Contemporary news reports of the vote say that while Crane turned and faced the House as the censure was read, Studds faced the Speaker who was reading the censure. Because the penalty for censure required him to stand in the Well and because he was facing the Speaker, he thus had his back to the House while the censure was read. Unlike Crane, he returned to the body of the House after the censure was read. So according to reports at the time, he was not "defiantly" turning his back on the House, he was facing the officer speaking for the House. But why miss the easy slam?

She also says "But now, the same Democrats who are incensed that Bush's National Security Agency was listening in on al-Qaida phone calls are incensed that Republicans were not reading a gay congressman's instant messages." If that's what she thinks Democrats, or it appears the majority of Americans, are incensed about, then she's not paying attention. Or she is paying attention, but what she sees doesn't fit the "argument" she wants to make.

There is a difference. The historical record is pretty clear that the House leadership took action as soon as it learned of the scandals in the early 1980s and that a censure was generally considered the appropriate response for both Crane and Studds. Aside from general "how could they not have knowns," there wasn't much suggestion that the leadership know and swept under the rug the information about Studds. (For some comparison to Coulter's version, it might be worth reading When the House Could Clean Itself in the Washington Post by Joseph A. Califano Jr., the special counsel to the ethics committee that investigated Stubbs. Yes, I know he's a Democrat, but somehow I still think he knows more about this than Ann Coulter.)

Here, however, Foley's resignation (his own decision made within an hour or two after he realized the IMs would be posted at ABCNews.com, and not the result of Democratic demands) was followed almost immediately by claims from Republican legislators and staffers that they had told the Speaker's Office about Foley's emails and conduct with pages, and that nothing was done. The claims seem to keep coming.

No one is "incensed" at Ann Coulter's straw man -- "that Republicans were not reading a gay congressman's instant messages." People are incensed that it seems very possible that the leadership knew what Foley was doing and did little if anything about it in order to protect themselves.

I'll admit that I may not be paying attention, but I haven't heard any Dems make any claim to being "immune." They're delusional if they are making that claim. I do find it interesting, however, that recent polls (sure, they can show pretty much anything), show that more people trust Democrats than trust Republicans on "traditional values." Maybe Gingrich was right when he said that what Democrats should do in this election "is say nothing except 'Had enough?'"

Yeah, Foley resigned. He didn't run and win again, like Gerry. Also, Studds had an affair with the kid. I fail to see how its different, except that the situation with Studds was worse, and recieved less rebuke (standing ovation in his hometown).

As for the wire tapping comments, I don't think we know what the GOP knew and when yet, I expect that to come out in coming weeks.

I haven't seen any Republicans putting up Studds as a defense to the action of Foley. You know damn well that if he had come out and not resigned, there would have been more action than just a censure. I imagine the political pressure would be to the degree that he would eventually resign. The reason I put Studds out there is for the sole purpose of showing democratic hypocrisy. I'm not saying the GOP doesn't have its share, but the fact that Democrats are saying "look at the party of values..." is pretty ridiculous considering what they stand for (or what they don't). Foley being a perv has little to do with partisan politics. If the leadership knew something and didn't act, sure, they should pay, but contrast that with the censure of Stubbs for what was likely a worse offense.

As for the "we never said we we had morals" or whatever comment, obviously nobody has said that. However, when you come out and say "we're not shoving values down peoples throat," that is basically what you're saying. You're saying you prefer a party that doesn't present values or hold up a moral standard, to one that does but has a few people who occasionally breach that message. Again, its easy to avoid hypocrisy when you don't hold yourself to any standard.

It's different not because of how Foley or Studds reacted, or that Studds had the good fortune (for him) to represent a liberal Massachusetts district rather than a conservative Florida district. It's different in how the leadership has reacted or, perhaps, failed to react.

You're right (except that the issue is not what the GOP knew, it's what the House leadership knew or didn't know). But so far, the infighting among House Republicans and the battling allegations certainly gives rise to a reasonable inference that someone knew something. As far as I can remember, and as best I can tell now, the same couldn't be said of the House leadership in 1983.

Quite possibly so. Is that hypocrisy or is that the change in standards over 23 years?

I was responding to your statement that "Dems are now saying they're immune to things like this." That's what I haven't heard.

As for values, it's a matter of whose values and what values, and saying that "its easy to avoid hypocrisy when you don't hold yourself to any standard" is just plain silly. Just because the Democratic Party doesn't present the same values the Republican Party does doesn't mean it is without values. There are certainly "values issues" on which I disagree with the Democratic Party platform. But when I weigh both parties against my own religious (Christian) values, I have a harder time with the Republican Party than the Democratic Party. I know plenty of other people who do as well, even if Ann Coulter doesn't know them.

I'm sure the democrats would claim they hold certain values, but what are they saying about themselves when they call the GOP hypocritical, and yet admit moral lapses in their own party? I'm simply saying that using the fact that they don't present values in their platform (at least like the GOP does) is a crappy defense.

As for Studds, if the reaction is the issue, their was no action on the affair until 10 years after it happened, I believe. I find it difficult to believe that there was no knowledge of the incident until a decade after the fact. You mention the change in standards from 1983 to now, but I don't think I can agree. I can't imagine an affair with a subordinate teenager would be accepted any more then than it was now, especially considering the stature of homosexuals 20 years ago. However, your point regarding Studds being lucky to be from a Mass. district is well taken.

You may well be right. But the investigation in that case did not start as an investigation of Studds particularly, but of allegations about Members of Congress and congressional staff in general. What the investigation uncovered was the actions of Studds and Crane. At least at the time, I don't recall, nor have I seen since, allegations that O'Neill or others in leadership positions engaged in a cover-up, yet allegations of that kind are being made now, and they're being made in part, or at least fueled, by statements from Republican Members of Congress and staffers.

Regardless, what does it have to do with surveillance of emails or instant messages, which was Ann Coulter's jumping off place?

Perhaps. Newt Gingrich said Studds should be expelled from the House, because similar conduct from a policeman or teacher would unquestionably result in firing. (Sounds like a speech this past weekend.) Nevertheless, the House voted 420-3 for censure. There had been recent expulsions from the House in the fallout of Abscam, and the overwhelming sense at the time seemed to be that (1) Crane's and Studd's offenses should be treated the same, and (2) censure was the appropriate precendent to set.

I would never suggest that some (many) members and operatives of the Democratic Party aren't taking advantage of this fiasco, and many are undoubtedly being hypocritical in the process. This is politics, after all. I just think it's naive to think things would be any different if the shoe were on the other foot.

However, this instance of a Democrat was over 20 years ago!