WHO KNEW CONGRESSMAN FOLEY WAS A CLOSETED DEMOCRAT?

[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.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by 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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

As for the "we never said we we had morals" or whatever comment, obviously nobody has said that. . . . 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.

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.

[shinerbock]

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.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

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 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?

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.

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.