If the Republicans are going to bring up Gerry Studds, I think they might need a reminder about another guy who was in Congress around the same time. Anyone remember Robert Bauman?
I think it’s interesting that this guy, like Foley, founded a group that would give him a lot of access to young people.
[QUOTE=XaMcQ]
I think it’s interesting that this guy, like Foley, founded a group that would give him a lot of access to young people.
[/QUOTE]
Why is that surprising? Lions go where the antelopes are, not the other way around.
I remember Robert Bauman especially well because his name is almost identical to mine. What if that jackass had made to Speaker of the House before he went down? It would have rendered my name about as cool as “Newt Gingrik.”
It’s kind of irrelevant, anyway, to inquire into which party has more pedophiles/ephebophiles/generically naughty persons in high places. In the Foley scandal, the problem is that the currently sitting House Pub leadership has been discredited by failing to do something about the problem when it was brought to their attention last year. If the Dem leadership of Studds’ day had been similarly negligent, that would be irrelevant to this election because none of those guys are running for re-election now.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
It’s kind of irrelevant, anyway…
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, but, it’s very interesting that the talking heads trying to preserve the “Pub leadership” don’t want to talk about anybody but Gerry Studds and Barney Frank. Guys like Bauman and Crane have conveniently fallen down the memory-hole.
If you only bring up disgraced Dems it gives it a nice newspeak spin, he’s not a true member of the party, he’s a member of “The Brotherhood”, a follower of Goldstein, he’s not really one of US.
CMC fnord!
[QUOTE=XaMcQ]
If the Republicans are going to bring up Gerry Studds, I think they might need a reminder about another guy who was in Congress around the same time. Anyone remember Robert Bauman?
[/QUOTE]
It’s OK. Acccording to the link, he was an alcoholic. All’s right with the world…
Difference between Studds and Crane & Bauman…
Crane & Bauman got tossed out by their constituents.
My point was that one twenty year old scandal is as good as another. None of them are really the least bit relevant to the case against Foley and Hastert.
But to address the cries of ‘double standard’, I respectfully submit that Studds, like most Democrats, probably had not represented himself as some kind of morally pure person who was attempting to legislate other peoples morality at the same time as doing things that they declared ‘reprehensible & immoral’ and ‘if not illegal, it should be’. I haven’t done any serious research on his voting record, but the wikipedia article mentions that Studds’ homosexuality was no big shock to his constituents, so I am assuming he wasn’t crusading against ‘sex perverts’ in his political platform. Wheras Bauman had, most conservative Republicans do, and when they say one thing, and vote that way, then get caught acting the opposite way, they deserve to have their faces smeared in it publicly. And they shouldn’t be surprised if the voters they lied to so blatantly don’t re-elect them.
[QUOTE=FriarTed]
Difference between Studds and Crane & Bauman…
Crane & Bauman got tossed out by their constituents.
[/QUOTE]
But Crane, when running for re-election, had the support of his party and, apparently, a visit from Bush the first; and he received 100,000 votes.
[QUOTE=XaMcQ]
My point was that one twenty year old scandal is as good as another. None of them are really the least bit relevant to the case against Foley and Hastert.
[/quote]
So your point is that your point is irrelevant? Okey dokey.
Huh? Are you suggesting that as long as Studds doesn’t make “no sex with underaged employees” a political platform, then it’s ok for him to do it? If what he did was hunkey dorey, then why (according to your link) did he ackowledge that it was “a very serious error in judgment”?
And I’d presume that the hypocricy is that Studds was a member of the body that creates and passes our laws, so he should be expected to follow them. It’s irrelevant whether or not his name was on the bills making sexual harassment and pedophilia illegal.
And your suggestion that Democrats don’t present themselves as more moral than Republicans is incredibly absurd. If I need to provide a few examples of Democrats arguing that they’re more moral than Republicans, I’ll do so. But for now, I’ll just assume that you didn’t really think about what you were typing.
The issue isn’t homosexuality (at least, not unless you’re Democratic strategist Bob Beckel, who apparently thinks the mere fact that someone is gay raises “red flags” that they might have inappropriate sexual relationships). The issue was the inappropriate nature of his sexual relationship. And the thing that was inappropriate about his sexual relationship was that he was soliciting sex with an underaged subordinate.
There’s nothing wrong with being gay. There is something wrong with statutory rape, sexual harassment, and contributing to the delinquency of a minor. And I think there’s something morally wrong with adults sexualizing kids.
No argument there. So should we be surprised when voters re-elect them?
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
In the Foley scandal, the problem is that the currently sitting House Pub leadership has been discredited by failing to do something about the problem when it was brought to their attention last year.
[/quote]
The Republican leadership didn’t have the instant messages that gave rise to this scandal, and they have enough information to know that anything was going on.
So apparently Hastert should have ousted a sitting Congressman based on an email that was so vague that it didn’t warrant a news story. Riiiight.
And I suppose that the Dems should have ousted Barney Frank (by all accounts, a very good Senator) after he admitted to “a lengthy relationship with a male hooker who ran a bisexual prostitution service out of Frank’s apartment”? And they should have ousted Gary Condit, after he admitted to having a sexual relationship with a staff-member who later turned up dead? Or should they have supported him? (Keeping in mind, of course, that it turned out that Condit did not commit the murder.) For example, Nancy Pelosi, Elliott Engel, Anna Eshoo, and Dick Gephardt:
The point is that I doubt you’d support ousting a Democratic candidate based on a flimsy email. Why do you so strongly condemn the Republicans for failing to oust a Republican based on the same evidence?
[QUOTE=Age Quod Agis]
The Republican leadership didn’t have the instant messages that gave rise to this scandal, and they have enough information to know that anything was going on.So apparently Hastert should have ousted a sitting Congressman based on an email that was so vague that it didn’t warrant a news story. Riiiight.
[/QUOTE]
The email:
That’s not enough to oust the named Congressman, surely. But imagine you’ve gotten that much information about an employee of yours. Do you:
a) Talk to one of the teenage workers, or maybe all three of the teenage workers, to find out more about what’s going on?
b) Talk to the teenagers’ direct supervisors and ask them to find out more about what’s going on?
c) Check with law enforcement to find out if there’s anything to investigate here?
d) Talk to the named employee, get his side of the story AND ONLY HIS SIDE OF THE STORY, and close the investigation entirely?
Seriously, I’m wondering whether you think D is a reasonable answer.
Daniel
The emails are only part of it anyway: there were people coming to Dennis and his office about the issue and general rumors that there was a problem. At the very least “carefully sweep under rug” is not the correct answer to the situation. Also remember that these guys stayed silent and/or joined the chorus about how Democrats were just making up lying smears right up until the point Foley resigned… DESPITE the fact that they knew there was real substance to the allegations.
[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
The email:
They did.
They did.
No. I don’t think so, nor did any of the people investigating the email. Nor did the folks who were “creeped out” by the email. Nor did the editorial board of the Miami Herald.
I haven’t checked the laws of the state of Florida and DC, but I doubt that “creeping someone out” is a criminal offense, even “thoroughly creeping someone out.” Apparently, everyone involved agreed with me.
They did talk to the named employee. They did not get “ONLY HIS SIDE OF THE STORY.”
Seriously, I’m wondering if you think that D is the only thing that was done here.
They talked to the pages and to the head of the page program? This directly contradicts what I’ve read so far about the case–can you cite these claims?
Daniel
[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
They talked to the pages and to the head of the page program? This directly contradicts what I’ve read so far about the case–can you cite these claims?
Daniel
[/QUOTE]
According to the NYTIMES
The page’s direct supervisor was never notified (the chairman of the House Page Board is not their direct supervisor). The pages themselves, as near as I can tell, were never interviewed. Where are you getting this from?
Daniel
Yes, AQA, given your stated great concern for facts and accuracy and all that. Where?
[QUOTE=Age Quod Agis]
So your point is that your point is irrelevant? Okey dokey.Huh? Are you suggesting that as long as Studds doesn’t make “no sex with underaged employees” a political platform, then it’s ok for him to do it? If what he did was hunkey dorey, then why (according to your link) did he ackowledge that it was “a very serious error in judgment”?
And I’d presume that the hypocricy is that Studds was a member of the body that creates and passes our laws, so he should be expected to follow them. It’s irrelevant whether or not his name was on the bills making sexual harassment and pedophilia illegal.
And your suggestion that Democrats don’t present themselves as more moral than Republicans is incredibly absurd. If I need to provide a few examples of Democrats arguing that they’re more moral than Republicans, I’ll do so. But for now, I’ll just assume that you didn’t really think about what you were typing.The issue isn’t homosexuality (at least, not unless you’re Democratic strategist Bob Beckel, who apparently thinks the mere fact that someone is gay raises “red flags” that they might have inappropriate sexual relationships). The issue was the inappropriate nature of his sexual relationship. And the thing that was inappropriate about his sexual relationship was that he was soliciting sex with an underaged subordinate.
There’s nothing wrong with being gay. There is something wrong with statutory rape, sexual harassment, and contributing to the delinquency of a minor. And I think there’s something morally wrong with adults sexualizing kids.No argument there. So should we be surprised when voters re-elect them?
[/QUOTE]
No, my point is that dragging up Democratic scandals from twenty years ago in an attempt to spread the slime around is stupid.
And I think what Studds did was incredibly poor judgment, but it was not illegal, as 17 was the age of consent in his state at the time, according to the same article, if you had read it.
And you may be able to find a few examples of Dems claiming to be more moral than the Repubs, but you are being disingenuious as hell if you won’t admit that they are the ones who have been claiming that they are the party of God, the party of family, the party of values, blah, blah, blah ad nauseum. They are they ones who want to control people’s rights to marry, reproduce(or not) and several other issues which a lot of people think they should keep their blue noses out of, just so they can grab that Evangelical vote.
I personally wouldn’t have given any of them a pass, or voted for them again after what they did. Barney Frank either, if what you say is true.
Just what is your point, besides trying to make me look bad?
[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
They talked to the pages and to the head of the page program?
[/QUOTE]
Congressman Alexander’s office talked to the page (and his family).
The emails themselves weren’t shown to anyone outside of Alexander’s office, so they didn’t have any way to know about the other folks that may have been identified.
I can’t say whether or not they talked to other individuals named in the emails because I haven’t seen any mention of those people in the news. Can you give me a cite to the emails themselves, or else a news story talking about the other individuals mentioned in the emails?
You obviously see where they met with the head of the page program. I don’t see any mention of them meeting (or not meeting) with the page’s direct supervisor. I apparently didn’t pay attention to the word “direct,” which was my mistake. However, I was under the impression that a wider investigation was conducted by the Clerk of the House and the head of the page’s office:
So I was careless in not noting that your message referred to the page’s direct supervisor.
[QUOTE=Elvislives]
Yes, AQA, given your stated great concern for facts and accuracy and all that. Where?
[/QUOTE]
I’d like to say that your admission that facts and accuracy aren’t important to you is refreshing. But that wouldn’t be accurate.