[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

What was mistaken?

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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by shinerbock

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.

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?'"