WHO KNEW CONGRESSMAN FOLEY WAS A CLOSETED DEMOCRAT?

[shinerbock]

Another stellar article by Ms. Coulter

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

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?

[shinerbock]

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.

[jon1856]

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/

[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.

[DSTCHAOS]

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.

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.

[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?'"

[shinerbock]

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.

[kstar]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

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.

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

[shinerbock]

K, so what? I'm not using the Studds incident for any other reason than to refute the accusations that republicans as a whole are hypocritical.

[DeltAlum]

Politicians, as a whole, are hypocritical.

[shinerbock]

Human beings, as a whole, are hypocritical.