Thursday, October 05, 2006

Democrat Ethics

The more information revealed in the case of former Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.), the more obvious it is that the Democrats are desperate. Voters should be highly suspicious of the timing of this 'scandal,' three years after the incident, yet just a month out from November 2006 elections.

It's understandable that voters are sickened or annoyed by Foley's behavior, but he has resigned, taken responsibility for his actions, and apologized. Democrat manipulation of the issue is sure to distract voters, but some perspective is sorely needed.

As Congressional Democrats declare outrage and the media gravely intone that Foley's actions must be investigated and somebody--somebody!--must be charged, let's review a bit of history...

In 1983, Gerry Studds (D-Mass) was finally censured for sexual relations with an underage page in 1973. He continued to be reelected by the 'enlightened' folks of the pretentious state of Massachusetts until retiring in 1997.
direct from Wikipedia:

Congressional page sex scandal
Studds was a central figure in the 1983 Congressional page sex scandal, when he and Representative Dan Crane were censured by the House of Representatives for separate sexual relationships with minors – in Studds's case, a 1973 relationship with a 17-year-old male congressional page who was of the age of legal consent, according to state law at the time. The relationship was consensual, but presented ethical concerns relating to working relationships with subordinates.

During the course of the House Ethics Committee's investigation, Studds publicly acknowledged his homosexuality, a disclosure that, according to a Washington Post article, "apparently was not news to many of his constituents." Studds stated in an address to the House, "It is not a simple task for any of us to meet adequately the obligations of either public or private life, let alone both, but these challenges are made substantially more complex when one is, as I am, both an elected public official and gay." He acknowledged that it had been inappropriate to engage in a relationship with a subordinate, and said his actions represented "a very serious error in judgement."[1]

As the House read their censure of him, Studds turned his back on the speaker and members in the chamber and ignored them. Later, at a press conference with the former page standing beside him, the two stated that what had happened between them was nobody's business but their own. [emphasis added]

I invite you to ponder this bold stance of a Democrat hero. I did, and compared these facts to the current noise pollution concerning Foley and House Republicans. My conclusion: rules simply do not apply to Democrats, but Republicans are pure evil and must be destroyed.


Post a Comment

<< Home