Congressional Perversion

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by TomJoe

The only comparison you need to make is that you have a Democrat who flew to Morocco to fuck a 17 year old boy.

I missed this detail....which Democrat was this?

Besides, why should you care godfry ... these people can't help themselves, right?

I feel like I missed an earlier exchange here. What are you driving at?

[JackDog]

Originally Posted by TomJoe

Sorry JackOff, I'm an Independent.

Spoken like a true Republican.

Originally Posted by TomJoe

And I didn't present what I did as a way of saying "Gerry Studds did it, so it's ok for Foley to do it." If you think that, you're an idiot. I said what I said because I find it hypocritical that, with skeletons of equal size in their own closet, the Democrats actually feel they have something on the GOP in this instance. They're all assholes.

No, you did present it as a "he did it first!" kind of argument. You can throw around insults all you want, be what you said is right there for everyone to read. There aren't any skeletons in the Dems closet because, unlike the Repubs, they're not forced to stay in the closet. Democrats accept everyone, but Republicans are only comfortable with wealthy white straight men. True, all politicians are assholes, but the Republicans are hypocritical assholes.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by JackDog

No, you did present it as a "he did it first!" kind of argument. You can throw around insults all you want, be what you said is right there for everyone to read. There aren't any skeletons in the Dems closet because, unlike the Repubs, they're not forced to stay in the closet. Democrats accept everyone, but Republicans are only comfortable with wealthy white straight men. True, all politicians are assholes, but the Republicans are hypocritical assholes.

Um...just to clarify, I'm a Democrat, and I think this is bullshit.

[TomJoe]

Originally Posted by Sauron

I missed this detail....which Democrat was this?

I was referring to Gerry Studds.

Originally Posted by Sauron

I feel like I missed an earlier exchange here. What are you driving at?

It's a long story. Basically, in order to prove me wrong when I said we're more than just mere animals that work on more than just instinct (along the lines of " ... we can choose to keep our dicks in our pants ... "), godfry in a typical fit, tried to throw the priest pedophile scandal in my face as he's wont to do. Problem is, his argument basically cleared the priests of culpability for their actions, because afterall they couldn't help themselves, acting on instinct and whatnot. That is, of course, bullshit. I believe the thread is in the Philosophy section somewhere. After that gaffe, it took godfry about a week (maybe a bit less) to raise up the nerve to show his face back in that thread.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by TomJoe

If people are going to call the GOP "Gang of Pederasts", which looks like a very broad brush to me ... I'd say it's equally comparable to blame all the Democrats (including Nancy Pelosi) for Gerry Studd's skeletons. I'll admit they're both non-sensical accusations, but what's good for the goose, is good for the gander. Plus, Gerry Studd's "sexual indiscretions" were revealed 10 years after the fact. Makes you wonder if it was covered up.

It certainly is a broad brush but, , if there's one thing I've learned from watching the GOP in action my entire adult life it's that the broader the brush the more effective the campaign.

I assume it goes without saying that anyone involved in any sort of coverup of this sort of misconduct ought to be quickly removed from office, at the very least, regardless of party. Having said, that, however, there are a number of significant differences between the two cases (to the limited degree that I'm familiar with the older case):

1) The fact that a number of ranking members of the party currently in power are alleged, with pretty good evidence, to have been involved in covering Foley's misconduct up for their own political ends. Is the GOP the party of pederasty? No, but their leadership certainly values power more than the prevention of pederasty.

2) The fact that these same 'leaders' have, when confronted with those allegations, dissembled shamelessly.

3) The fact that the politicians in question are among the high brass of the party that presents itself as the self-appointed guardian of moral decency in America. The Democrats, shameful and disgusting as it is when they, as suposed leaders, are caught doing illegal or immoral things, are at the very one step above their opposition who are shameful, disgusting, and utterly hypocritical when caught at illegal or immoral behavior because, unlike the Republicans, they do not present themselves, as part of their party mythology, as unusually moral or upstanding.

I was going to add that there seem to be quite a few Republican pedophiles and pederasts (as in Republicans who hold office of some sort, not just members of the party) making the news in the past year or so, but I'm well aware that my impression may be due to selection bias on my part, or the part of those I trust to filter the political news for me.

At any rate, while it's certainly an innaccurate and unfair generalization to call the GOP the party of pederasty, it's equally inaccurate and unfair to claim, as they themselves are wont to do, that they are the party of high morals, or that their opposition (such as it is) is the party of <insert falsehood, slur, crazy liberal stereotype, or Bill Clinton's penis here>, so I'm not going to be shedding any tears for them any time soon.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Um...just to clarify, I'm a Democrat, and I think this is bullshit.

And self-evidently so.

[TomJoe]

Originally Posted by Adam

At any rate, while it's certainly an innaccurate and unfair generalization to call the GOP the party of pederasty, it's equally inaccurate and unfair to claim, as they themselves are wont to do, that they are the party of high morals, or that their opposition (such as it is) is the party of <insert falsehood, slur, crazy liberal stereotype, or Bill Clinton's penis here>, so I'm not going to be shedding any tears for them any time soon.

I concur.

[ChuckF]

So Denny Hastert isn't resigning. At least not yet. I say bravo, because as long as he's in the leadership, the scandal will continue to be discussed. Here's hoping the cleavages we've already seen in the party will deepen.

[Ari]

I'm hoping this will hit them hard because the GOP has been marketing themselves as the moral defenders of decency and people have been buying it. I would be quite happy if people start realizing they are sleazy politicians just like all the rest of them. I'm also hoping at least some people will realize that no matter what they say, they are here to protect themselves first and the public second.

[Adam]

I vote for more of that deep cleavage Chuck mentioned.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by Adam

I vote for more of that deep cleavage Chuck mentioned.

Have you seen the tits on some of those pages?

[TomJoe]

Originally Posted by Ari

'm also hoping at least some people will realize that no matter what they say, they are here to protect themselves first and the public second.

Which is why ... if they want the position, they shouldn't be able to have it. Though, that really won't work for our country any longer.

[erimir]

I might note that in Gerry Studds case that as far as I know, his attentions were welcomed by the page (i.e. it was a consensual relationship), rather than him randomly hitting on every page boy with smooth legs that came his way.

Although it was still unethical due to the page being in a subordinate position.

But the Gerry Studds scandal was 23 years ago, and the actual affair occurred 33 years ago, which makes it a bit odd to be bringing that up again, as if the current Democratic party is identical to the party back when that happened.

[yguy]

Originally Posted by Ari

I'm hoping this will hit them hard because the GOP has been marketing themselves as the moral defenders of decency and people have been buying it. I would be quite happy if people start realizing they are sleazy politicians just like all the rest of them.

But that isn't true. Republicans may be guilty of hypocrisy, but Democrats have abandoned mere hypocrisy for something much worse.

[Ari]

Originally Posted by yguy

But that isn't true. Republicans may be guilty of hypocrisy, but Democrats have abandoned mere hypocrisy for something much worse.

Disagreeing with you?

Allowing their secretly gay members to continue sexually explicit contact with minors while towing their anti-gay and anti-sex line to the public?

Oh no, I got it, taking money (bribes) from large corperation and spec-interest groups and ignoring the public until it's voting time.

[Watser?]

Originally Posted by yguy

But that isn't true. Republicans may be guilty of hypocrisy, but Democrats have abandoned mere hypocrisy for something much worse.

Give me a break. Democrats are wishy-washy confronted with the Republican onslaught, but the Repubs have only ONE principle: stay in power no matter what.

Under Bush II especially nothing is sacred. Kerry was swiftboated for serving his country and then standing up against the war. That was a courageous and moral thing to do. Bush and Cheney on the other hand just weaseled out of going to Vietnam, but 'supported the war'. They have the moral integrity of a mop that has just been used to clean a whorehouse toilet.

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by yguy

But that isn't true. Republicans may be guilty of hypocrisy, but Democrats have abandoned mere hypocrisy for something much worse.

Don't kid yourself - Republicans are guilty of far more than just hypocrisy.

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally Posted by JackDog

Your GOP has become the party of "Do as I say, not as I do." And all of you dittoheads ...

I've never been so insulted in all my life! Not everyone is either a Democrat or a Republican, you know.

I guess I'm not mocking Bill O'Reilly and Clarence Thomas enough, or something.

[angrybellsprout]

Republicans are only comfortable with wealthy white straight men.

Because the south, great plains and the western desert are where all the wealthy white straight men live...

[Watser?]

Originally Posted by TomJoe

Two words for you: Gerry Studds.

billmon
Hot Republican Studds

Doing his bit for Operation Save Our Majority, Marc Ambinder at the Hotline (the National Journal's news service for political junkies) tries very hard to circulate a GOP urban legend:

It's the talking point of the day for Republicans -- and yes, it is a talking point.

Gerry Studds (D-MA) had sex with a 17-year-old male page in 1983. He was reprimanded. Republicans wanted to censure him. But 79 Dems voted against upgrading the condemnation.

It may be the talking point of the day, but it's also a lie. Studds was censured, not reprimanded -- even though the latter was the penalty recommended both for him and for GOP page bender Dan Crane by the House Ethics Committee. Republican backbenchers, led by that paragon of moral virtue, Newt Gingrich, wanted to expel them both.

The vote to upgrade Studds' reprimand to censure was 338 yeahs to 87 nays, and while I don't have the partisan breakdown, I wouldn't be surprised if 79 of those nay votes were Dems -- excessive partisanship being such a bipartisan disease in Washington. But, the vote to upgrade Crane's reprimand to a censure passed by only 289 yeahs to 136 nays. I'm guessing not all of those 136 votes were cast by the heathen Democrats.

In both cases, the final vote on censure was overwhelmingly lopsided -- 421 to 3 in Crane's case, and 420 to 3 in Studd's.

(My source on all this is "House Censures Crane and Studds," Washington Post, July 21, 1983, page A1. I looked it up using Nexis, but haven't been able to find a copy on line.)

The Dems never had anything on the Repugs where hypocrisy is concerned

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally Posted by Watser?

1983

"Just recently," is how Sean Hannity described it.

[JackDog]

Originally Posted by yguy

Republicans may be guilty of hypocrisy, but Democrats have abandoned mere hypocrisy for something much worse.

What's worse than hypocrisy?

Originally Posted by D. Scarlatti

I guess I'm not mocking Bill O'Reilly and Clarence Thomas enough, or something.

Damn straight! If you're not constantly disparaging O'Lielly or Long Dong Silver, you've obviously been chugging straight from the GOP kool-aid bowl.



~edit~
This quote, "GOP page bender Dan Crane," reminded me of what Michael Musto (I think that's his name) said on "Countdown" last night. He said that Foley had lost his bookmark so that's why he was bending pages.

[Watser?]

Hehe, I also found this:

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by erimir

I might note that in Gerry Studds case that as far as I know, his attentions were welcomed by the page (i.e. it was a consensual relationship), rather than him randomly hitting on every page boy with smooth legs that came his way.

Although it was still unethical due to the page being in a subordinate position.

But the Gerry Studds scandal was 23 years ago, and the actual affair occurred 33 years ago, which makes it a bit odd to be bringing that up again, as if the current Democratic party is identical to the party back when that happened.

Now, just how did they know that?

Did they have a video camera in the Morroccan hotel room? Maybe Studds perferred the subordinate position and the page the superior one.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by Adam

The fact that a number of ranking members of the party currently in power are alleged, with pretty good evidence, to have been involved in covering Foley's misconduct up for their own political ends.

From everything I have been hearing and reading, this would seem to be a fact that is in question. Did the conduct about which the Republican leadership had definite knowledge rise to the level of actionable misconduct? From what I have been able to gather Foley was privately advised to discontinue behavior (basically paying excessive personal attention to pages) that was inappropriate, but not necessarily illegal, immoral or harmful. Would it have been appropriate to publicly reprimand Foley for behavior which may not have risen to the level of real misconduct, simply on the suspicion that it might indicate an inclination to engage in real misconduct? The question of what they knew and when they knew it is at the crux of the whole charge of a cover-up.