Foley, and the democrats past sex scandals

[bshane]

I've been reading on here lately about the bashing of Foley and the republicans. I would be willing to bet that if the case was reversed and Foley was a Democrat you all would be defending him like crazy. Over the years democrats have embraced and even re-elected congressman who were arrested and or convicted of sex crimes. Some of which were underage. Foley is a republican and should not have been what he was doing. My question to you left leaning people is why are there double standards for democrats? Why are democrats allowed to do these things? Here is a list of democrats breaking the law for your viewing pleasure.

Former Rep. Gerry Studds. He was censured for sexual relationship with underage male page in 1983. Massachusetts voters returned him to office for six more terms.

Former Rep. Fred Richmond. This New York Democrat was arrestedin 1978 for soliciting sex from a 16-year-old. He remained in Congress and won re-election—before eventually resigning in 1982 after pleading guilty to tax evasion and drug possession.

Rep. Barney Frank. The outspoken Massachusetts Democrat hired a male prostitute who ran a prostitution service from Frank’s residence in the 1980s. Only two Democrats in the House of Representatives voted to censure him in 1990.

Sen. Daniel Inouye. The 82-year-old Hawaii Democrat was accused in the 1990s by numerous women of sexual harassment. Democrats cast doubt on the allegations and the Senate Ethics Committee dropped its investigation.

Former Rep. Gus Savage. The Illinois Democrat was accused of fondling a Peace Corpsvolunteer in 1989 while on a trip to Africa. The House Ethics Committee decided against disciplinary action in 1990.

Former Sen. Brock Adams. The late Washington Democrat was forced to stop campaigning after numerous accusations of drugging, assault and rape, the first surfacing in 1988.

Former Rep. John Young. The late Texas Democrat increased the salary of a staffer after she gave in to his sexual advances. The congressman won re-election in 1976 but lost two years later.

Former Rep. Wayne Hays. The late Ohio Democrat hired an unqualified secretary reportedly for sexual acts. Although he resigned from Congress, the Democratic House leadership stalled in removing him from the Administration Committee in 1976.

Former Rep. Mel Reynolds. The Illinois Democrat was convicted of 12 counts of sexual assault with a 16-year-old. President Bill Clinton pardoned him before leaving office.

 

[mike_n_herrin]

if there is a double standard, it's wrong. there shouldn't be. however, i think the vast majority of D.C politicians (republican and democrats) are a bunch of lying, unethical, people who should all be thrown out of office. But that is my opinion.

 

[Roland00]

I don't know about the rest of them but this is a lie. The relationship was consensual and the man was not underage, he was of legal age.

The male page Gerry Studds had sex with was 17, thus a minor, but is legal for the age of consent is 16.

 

[JackFTwist]

Your cut and paste from a right wing smear site is full of shit.

First, Clinton did not pardon Mel Reynolds for sexual abuse crimes, for which Reynolds served time and was released. Your apology is awaited. Reynolds was pardoned of something else entirely, not for the sexual crimes for which he served his full sentence.

Second, right now a Republican congressman in Pennsyvania is running ads for apologizing for abusing his mistress. And the list of omission from your list, all Republican, betrays there is noithing with integrity in what you have posted.

Studds - censored by the House uner Democratic leadership the same day that Republican Crane was censored for having sex with a female page - you forgot that tidbit - was censored under Democratic leadership that did not have to wait for ABC News to act before they did - they acted with ethics as soon as they knew, unlike the current irresponsible House leadership which only acted when forced as they tried to cover up to save a House seat.

And who is the Republican leadership? hastert whogot the job when Livingston had to step away after the details of his affairs came out after getting the job when Gingrich left after he told his second wife while she was in the hospital that he was leaving her for his mistress, the current Mrs. Gingrich.

Whatever right wing site you cut and pasted for, I always expect better from our community to parrot right wing bullshit, distortions, and lies. You should not be feeling any pride tonight.

 

[JackFTwist]

PS there was no evidence on Gus Savage. An accusation is not proff nor a conviction. That is why the matter was dismissed, it was a bogus charge.

Franks cashiered his friend when he found out what was happening. Franks was in no way invo;ved. Should we censure you for whom you assoicate with when your associates do things without your knowledge?

 

[Roland00]

The first post said he was underage, he was not. It was not worded as 'minor'.

Either it was bad writting, or an attempt to spin. I don't care, I am just illuminating the situation with the truth, or at least the truth to my knowledge.

 

[JackFTwist]

I can't believe there was a list of dem sex scandals and not one mention of Ted Kennedy...no Mary Joe? No Palms Springs? No Gary Hart? Do I have to do EVERYTHING??

yes, but when you do post those please include

Rep. Jon Hinson (R-Miss.)
On Aug. 8, 1980, during his first reelection bid, Hinson stunned everyone by announcing that in 1976 he had been accused of committing an obscene act at a gay haunt in Virginia. Hinson, married and a strong conservative, added that in 1977 he had survived a fire in a gay D.C. movie theater. He was making the disclosure, he said, because he needed to clear his conscience. But he denied he was a homosexual and refused GOP demands that he resign. Hinson won reelection in a three-way race, with 39 percent of the vote. But three months later, he was arrested on charges of attempted oral sodomy in the restroom of a House office building. He resigned his seat on April 13, 1981

Bauman campaign button Rep. Robert Bauman (R-Md.)
On Oct. 3, 1980, Bauman, a leading "pro-family" conservative, pleaded innocent to a charge that he committed oral sodomy on a teenage boy in Washington. Married and the father of four, Bauman conceded that he had been an alcoholic but had been seeking treatment. The news came as a shock to voters of the rural, conservative district, and he lost to a Democrat in November.

1981

Rep. Thomas Evans (R-Del.)
The Wilmington News-Journal reported on March 6, 1981, that three House members – Evans, Tom Railsback (R-Ill.) and Dan Quayle (R-Ind.) – shared a cottage during a 1980 vacation in Florida with Paula Parkinson, a lobbyist who later posed for Playboy magazine. All three proceeded to vote against federal crop-insurance legislation that Parkinson had been lobbying against, and questions were raised whether votes were exchanged for sex. Railsback and Quayle denied having sex with her. Evans said he regretted his "association" with Parkinson and asked his family and God to forgive him. But he forgot to include the voters, who in 1982 threw him out of office.

1983

Reps. Dan Crane (R-Ill.) and Gerry Studds (D-Mass.)
The House ethics committee on July 14, 1983, announced that Crane and Studds had sexual relationships with teenage congressional pages – Crane with a 17-year-old female in 1980, Studds with a 17-year-old male in 1973. Both admitted the charges that same day, and Studds acknowledged he was gay. The committee voted to reprimand the two, but a back-bench Georgia Republican named Newt Gingrich argued that they should be expelled. The full House voted on July 20 instead to censure the two, the first time that ever happened for sexual misconduct. Crane, married and the father of six, was tearful in his apology to the House, while Studds refused to apologize. Crane's conservative district voted him out in 1984, while the voters in Studds's more liberal district were more forgiving. Studds won reelection in 1984 with 56 percent of the vote, and continued to win until he retired in 1996.

1987

Rep. Ernie Konnyu (R-Calif.)
In August 1987, two former Konnyu aides complained to the San Jose Mercury News that the Freshmen Republican had sexually harassed them. GOP leaders were unhappy with Konnyu's temperament to begin with, so it took little effort to find candidates who would take him on in the primary. Stanford professor Tom Campbell ousted Konnyu the following June.

1989

Rep. Donald "Buz" Lukens (R-Ohio)
On Feb. 1, 1989, an Ohio TV station aired a videotape of a confrontation between Lukens, a conservative activist, and the mother of a Columbus teenager. The mother charged that Lukens had been paying to have sex with her daughter since she was 13. On May 26, Lukens was found guilty of contributing to the delinquency of a minor and sentenced to one month in jail. Infuriating his fellow Republicans, Lukens refused to resign. But he finished a distant third in the May 1990 primary. Instead of spending the remaining months of his term in obscurity, Lukens was accused of fondling a Capitol elevator operator and he resigned on October 24, 1990.

1990

Rep. Arlan Stangeland (R-Minn.)
It was reported in January 1990 that Stangeland, married with seven children, had made several hundred long-distance phone calls in 1986 and 1987 on his House credit card to or from the residences of a female lobbyist. Stangeland acknowledged the calls and conceded some of them may have been personal. But he insisted the relationship was not romantic. Voters of his rural district were not buying, choosing a Democrat in November.


Sen. Bob Packwood (R-Ore.)
Less than three weeks after Packwood narrowly won a fifth term, the Washington Post on Nov. 22, 1992, reported allegations from 10 female ex-staffers that Packwood had sexually harassed them. The Post had the story before the election, but didn't run it as Packwood had denied the charges. With the story now out in the open, Packwood said that if any of his actions were "unwelcome," he was "sincerely sorry." He then sought alcohol counseling. But his longtime feminist allies were outraged, and with more women coming forward with horror stories, there were calls for his resignation. It wasn't until September of 1995 when, faced with the prospect of public Senate hearings and a vote to expel, Packwood announced his resignation.

 

[james1200]

how many times must this be said before the right-wingers allow some sense to penetrate their skulls? THE BIG ISSUE WITH FOLEY IS THAT HE'S A FAMILY VALUES REPUBLICAN...AND THAT MAKES HIM A HYPOCRITE. DEMOCRATS DON'T GO AROUND PREACHING VALUES AND ATTACKING THEIR OPPONENTS AS IMMORAL. this is a huge story because of the hypocrisy angle...i know that word is new to republicans so look it up.

 

[CharLee]

Dems only believe in free speech when it's them speaking.

 

[james1200]

and repukeicans can't answer a simple question about their hypocrisy cause they're morally bankrupt.

i guess soliciting minors online is now free speech...wow, you really are the party of pervs.

 

[Roland00]

how many times must this be said before the right-wingers allow some sense to penetrate their skulls? THE BIG ISSUE WITH FOLEY IS THAT HE'S A FAMILY VALUES REPUBLICAN...AND THAT MAKES HIM A HYPOCRITE. DEMOCRATS DON'T GO AROUND PREACHING VALUES AND ATTACKING THEIR OPPONENTS AS IMMORAL. this is a huge story because of the hypocrisy angle...i know that word is new to republicans so look it up.

Calm down.

Foley is now no longer involved in any politics since he resigned. Yes he is a hypocrite, but since he is no longer involved, I don't think it really matters if he is a hypocrite.

Now the only remaining news worthy part of the foley case is whether Hastert and any other leading republicans of the house knew about this behavior and did nothing. If this is so they are hypocrites, but until then only Foley is a hypocrite.

People focusing only on calling Republicans hypocrites right now seems too much like neener neener you hear from a child. It is a person who delights in the misfortune or hypocrisy of others. If the Democratic Leadership is intelligent they won't try to focus only on the hypocricy of Republicans now, instead they will say what happened is unfortunate and unethical and promise an investigation and reform of the page system. Condeming the act, but not focusing only on the scandal. Then they would say they would like to get back to the real issues that affect america. They can make a single quip about how successful the Republicans in their single mindness have been on their moral crusade, that it lead to neglience to the other issues that are affecting America. By doing so it makes the Democrats seem like leaders, and people vote for leaders.

They then do not bring up the issue of the Foley scandal again until Republicans try to say how they are morally superior to Democrats. By doing so it appears that the Democrats want to actually fix the problems that face America and that the Republicans just want to play a game of spin. If done correctly it shuts down the Republican attack, and leaves egg on the Republican faces.

Else its just more political tug o war, and thus no new voters are swayed to the democrat side, voter allegiance remains the same as it was before the scandal. Only difference is that you might have some reduced turn out in the midterms comming out in a month, and this reduced turn out was going to happen regardless of what Democrats said, it was going to just happened due to their being a scandal in the first place.

 

[Sausy]

I've done the reading,looked at several sources...and while Rep.Studds I believe was guilty of bad judgement,consensual or not,legal age at the time or not..he was quickly censured by the House at the time and everything was out in the open,there was no leadership coverup.The subsequent reelection to five terms was the choice of his constituents...he claimed it was nobody's business,but subordinate-boss relationships,especially where legal age was just met,is wrong because of the potential abuse of power.His conduct since then,however,has been pretty exemplary,and he is currently in a longstanding relationship.

The Republican leadership and Mr.foley have acted far worse in this farce..the Democrats did have corruption problems of course,but handled the joint Studds/Republican Rep.Philip Crane page incidents at that time with seriousness of purpose and gravitas,handing both censurings from the house of Representatives for their actions,and not passing the buck and hiding their heads in the sand,hoping all will go harmlessly away.The Republicans of today most certainly did the opposite,passing blame and saying so and so knew but not the leadership,or the leaders knew much earlier and had wanted to bring pressure on Foley to stop his inappropriate interest,or everyone knew Foley was gay..or whatever other version someone was coming up with.plain truth is they did nothing....by allowing this cancer to fester and worsen,the worst happened.If they lose part or all of control of Congress,it will be deserved.

 

[james1200]

Calm down.

Foley is now no longer involved in any politics since he resigned. Yes he is a hypocrite, but since he is no longer involved, I don't think it really matters if he is a hypocrite.

Now the only remaining news worthy part of the foley case is whether Hastert and any other leading republicans of the house knew about this behavior and did nothing. If this is so they are hypocrites, but until then only Foley is a hypocrite.

People focusing only on calling Republicans hypocrites right now seems too much like neener neener you hear from a child. It is a person who delights in the misfortune or hypocrisy of others. If the Democratic Leadership is intelligent they won't try to focus only on the hypocricy of Republicans now, instead they will say what happened is unfortunate and unethical and promise an investigation and reform of the page system. Condeming the act, but not focusing only on the scandal. Then they would say they would like to get back to the real issues that affect america. They can make a single quip about how successful the Republicans in their single mindness have been on their moral crusade, that it lead to neglience to the other issues that are affecting America. By doing so it makes the Democrats seem like leaders, and people vote for leaders.

They then do not bring up the issue of the Foley scandal again until Republicans try to say how they are morally superior to Democrats. By doing so it appears that the Democrats want to actually fix the problems that face America and that the Republicans just want to play a game of spin. If done correctly it shuts down the Republican attack, and leaves egg on the Republican faces.

Else its just more political tug o war, and thus no new voters are swayed to the democrat side, voter allegiance remains the same as it was before the scandal. Only difference is that you might have some reduced turn out in the midterms comming out in a month, and this reduced turn out was going to happen regardless of what Democrats said, it was going to just happened due to their being a scandal in the first place.

you keep forgetting that congressional votes have generally been split 50-50 nationwide for the last decade or so...all it takes is a small movement in one direction for a landslide like the one republicans had in 1994. and after all this garbage in the last 2 years, i doubt anyone is gonna be turned off if the dems bring up the foley issue. in fact it'll energize their base...tho i would wait til the last few days if i were them.

 

[james1200]

i only disagree general in that this is not yet a bore...sex scandals never are. especially when it involves hypocrtical and amoral conservatives. i think even conservatives must secretly enjoy the exposure of conservative hypocrites. certainly the bay buchanans seem to be having a lot of fun bashing their own...they probably see it as a chance to "purify" their party.

 

[Txgoodoldboy]

I would be willing to bet that if the case was reversed and Foley was a Democrat you all would be defending him like crazy.

That is the whole point, he is not a democrat! The democrats weren't the ones trying to cover it up.

 

[slobone]

Hey, I'm a Democrat and I'm defending Foley anyway. I don't think what he did was so terrible, at least from what's been revealed so far. It looks like he waited until they were no longer pages, he never laid a finger on them, and some of them at least were of perfectly legal age.

I reserve the right to change my opinion if we find out he did worse stuff than this.

But be aware guys -- this is a great scandal for the Democratic Party, but not for gay people. You can bet the chance of the GOP nominating anybody who they think is probably gay will now be approximately zero for some years to come.

Not to mention gay staffers, who have played a big role on Capitol Hill. All of which is a loss for us.

 

[slobone]

^^^ Oops, OK, I have to amend that slightly after reading about the ex-page he actually did manage to have sex with. But the guy was 21 at the time.

I still say, beware. Don't be surprised if this thing leads to a quiet purge of gay employees on Capitol Hill. Or at least a "hiring freeze" on gay people.

 

[Roland00]

you keep forgetting that congressional votes have generally been split 50-50 nationwide for the last decade or so...all it takes is a small movement in one direction for a landslide like the one republicans had in 1994. and after all this garbage in the last 2 years, i doubt anyone is gonna be turned off if the dems bring up the foley issue. in fact it'll energize their base...tho i would wait til the last few days if i were them.

Thats the thing, I am looking on how the democrats will generate additional votes from this issue, instead of just preserving the status quo. The damage done by the foley scandal to the Republican base has already been done, any additionall harping on the issue will actually be counter productive for the republican congressmans and republican conmentors will just use religous right deep hatred/resentment of the democrats to energize their base. They won't stay home for their people are scumbags, no they must vote for they must help slay the secular movement, and that means voting against the Ds

The religious right aren't they people the democrats are attracting with the tactics I listed above, its the moderate voters who care about other issues. Its the moderates in Ohio who right now there biggest interest is the vast lost of manufacturing jobs over the last decade. These are the people that the Democrats are able to convert to Ds for one election or permanmently if they just realized it.

No this won't be a huge political shift that will change the future of the Democrats forever, its just a small bump. Problem is Ds haven't been idiots, and haven't learned on how to capitalize on those small bumps for decades

 

[naked gent]

The difference between this scandal and past democratic scandals is the involvement of the republican leadership in this one. By not telling the democtatic member of the page oversight committee about the e-mails the leadership at a minimum thought there was something here that they would rather not be made public.

If Denny Hastert thought enough about the more innocent e-mails to tell Foley to knock it off one wonders why he didn't remove Foley from the committee that dealt with missing or exploited children. If I could ask Hastert one question that would be it....how could you leave a guy like that in a position like that?

Until I hear an explaination from him I must believe that they left Foley to guard the henhouse because it was easier that having to explain why he was removed. If there was a cover-up that is where it began.

 

[NameTaken]

Um, I know I for one woul NOT be defending him just because of his political affiliation and it is quite offensive you think many of us would. Political affiliation does not garner you more or less sympathy in this kind of situation.