So as we have seen over the past few decades, no organization is without some degree of scandal, the major difference seems to be in how they handle such disasters. And yes this is in regards to the foley affair.
back many millenia ago, when I was but a wee tyke, in 1983, this became an issue in congress as well, only in a double dose, there was republican dan crane, cannot recall state but will edit, and democrat gerry studds (dunno if it's pronounced "jerry" or "gary", hear it both ways) of massachusetts (one state which i will never live in apparently).
Dan Crane was caught having an affair with a 17 year old female page, Studds a 17 year old male. Neither denied it, and the HEC merely reprimanded each. That's about where the similarity stops.
Congress did, however decide to censure each of them, and while Crane stood and took his sentence like a man (as Studd's page did while working "under" him), Studds turned his back on the speaker's podium while the sentence of censure was read aloud for public record.
Crane issued a teary eyed apology in front of the world for what he did, and rightly so, at the time Republican Newt Gingrich of Georgia very vocally called for the expulsion of each of them, and while he did not get his wish, Crane found himself without the support of his party or his constituents, and lost re-election in 84 (why he bothered is beyond me).
Studds, in addition to turning his back on the speaker, Tip Oneill -Democrat- Massachussetts, later held a press conference to state that although the page (who was present at the conference) was only 17, the relationship was completely consentual, and no one else's business. After all, he had flown the boy to Morocco to instigate the sexual relationship, and therefore didn't break any american laws, nanny nanny poo poo, stick your head in doo doo.
Crane, abandoned by his party for his failings, faded out of existence.
Studds, much like Barney Frank (who ATG has already addressed, had a young lover, I mean assistant, living at his apartment from which he, the lover, was running a male escort service at times with underage boys) Democrat-Massachussetts (ok this whole Mass. thing is getting ridiculous), went on to become one of the Democrat party and the gay rights movement's glory boys, his ephebophilic affair and controversy a red badge of courage as opposed to a scarlet letter of shame. He went on to represent his district with full backing of the democratic party until 1996. Often referencing the critiscism of his affair with his page in gay rights speeches and such, to illustrate how unfair society is towards gays, ignoring the fact that Crane had received the same treatment, could the age have been the focal point Mr Studds?
So, in short you have:
Crane, and Foley (not yet accused of having intercourse, unless I missed something today, but who's actions are still inexcusable) republicans, run out of town on a rail by leading members of their own party as well as their constituents after their inappropriate conduct had been exposed.
Studds and Frank (today still a fully supported member of the dem party, and who uses his controversy as a "bonus" as well), democrats, not only supported by their parties, but whose scandals have actually been used to bolster their careers.
Just a subtle difference to consider, especially if you're planning on moving to Massachussetts with Ted and Kerry.
edit: added link to ATG's thread, and wished I had a way to rename thread to "Reasons to avoid Massachussetts"
back many millenia ago, when I was but a wee tyke, in 1983, this became an issue in congress as well, only in a double dose, there was republican dan crane, cannot recall state but will edit, and democrat gerry studds (dunno if it's pronounced "jerry" or "gary", hear it both ways) of massachusetts (one state which i will never live in apparently).
Dan Crane was caught having an affair with a 17 year old female page, Studds a 17 year old male. Neither denied it, and the HEC merely reprimanded each. That's about where the similarity stops.
Congress did, however decide to censure each of them, and while Crane stood and took his sentence like a man (as Studd's page did while working "under" him), Studds turned his back on the speaker's podium while the sentence of censure was read aloud for public record.
Crane issued a teary eyed apology in front of the world for what he did, and rightly so, at the time Republican Newt Gingrich of Georgia very vocally called for the expulsion of each of them, and while he did not get his wish, Crane found himself without the support of his party or his constituents, and lost re-election in 84 (why he bothered is beyond me).
Studds, in addition to turning his back on the speaker, Tip Oneill -Democrat- Massachussetts, later held a press conference to state that although the page (who was present at the conference) was only 17, the relationship was completely consentual, and no one else's business. After all, he had flown the boy to Morocco to instigate the sexual relationship, and therefore didn't break any american laws, nanny nanny poo poo, stick your head in doo doo.
Crane, abandoned by his party for his failings, faded out of existence.
Studds, much like Barney Frank (who ATG has already addressed, had a young lover, I mean assistant, living at his apartment from which he, the lover, was running a male escort service at times with underage boys) Democrat-Massachussetts (ok this whole Mass. thing is getting ridiculous), went on to become one of the Democrat party and the gay rights movement's glory boys, his ephebophilic affair and controversy a red badge of courage as opposed to a scarlet letter of shame. He went on to represent his district with full backing of the democratic party until 1996. Often referencing the critiscism of his affair with his page in gay rights speeches and such, to illustrate how unfair society is towards gays, ignoring the fact that Crane had received the same treatment, could the age have been the focal point Mr Studds?
So, in short you have:
Crane, and Foley (not yet accused of having intercourse, unless I missed something today, but who's actions are still inexcusable) republicans, run out of town on a rail by leading members of their own party as well as their constituents after their inappropriate conduct had been exposed.
Studds and Frank (today still a fully supported member of the dem party, and who uses his controversy as a "bonus" as well), democrats, not only supported by their parties, but whose scandals have actually been used to bolster their careers.
Just a subtle difference to consider, especially if you're planning on moving to Massachussetts with Ted and Kerry.
edit: added link to ATG's thread, and wished I had a way to rename thread to "Reasons to avoid Massachussetts"
Last edited by kr@cker (2006-10-03 22:23:39)