|
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.
|
Threaded Mode
