WHO KNEW CONGRESSMAN FOLEY WAS A CLOSETED DEMOCRAT?

[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.