HmmmMasques wrote:
especially when there's nothing to indicate the other party had anything to do with the information released.....
It has nothing to do with partisanship and it has nothing to do with whether or not Foley is representing the party line. I never said he was. I compared the two caucuses when the Studds and Foley incidents came to light (remember, Foley's behaviour was recognized several years ago according to statements by other Republicans). Foley was in a leadership position in the house (deputy whip) while Studds chaired a committee and was stripped of the chairmanship. I'm saying that the offense was equal, but the response in these cases by the party leadership was not equal.
It'd be like the Dems calling for an investigation of the Republicans when it came out that Studds had sex with a page. It would seem like the most blatant attempt at blame shifting for a member of that party's own wrongdoing.
And not to minimize the Chappaquiddick incident (which is shady as hell), but Kennedy pled guilty to a misdemeanor offences which would not have resulted in his being denied his senate seat. It's always struck me as odd that the incident (or at least the occurrances around the incident) haven't had more of an impact on his career.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ibd/20061002/bs … 02issues01
SO where the hell do you get off saying that Democrats didn't know about when there is obvious proof about it and one of them even admitted knowing about it as early as SPRING of this year. I call BULLSHIT on the Dems for not releasing this sooner and getting rid of this scumbag. You have said they CLEARLY did not know, so where do you draw that conclusion?The timing of the revelations, as we noted, couldn't be more propitious for the Democrats. Turns out both the Democrats and several newspapers seem to have known about Foley's problem as far back as November, according to research by several enterprising blogs.
Why didn't they come forward then? Who dredged up these e-mails -- and why did they hold them until now? This reeks of political trickery.
We're glad Foley's gone. He betrayed Congress, his party and the trust of the 33 pages who serve in Congress, and their parents. He behaved immorally, and we won't be surprised at new revelations.
That said, if this scandal is the Democrats' answer to their problems at the polls, it's pretty pathetic. It shows a base contempt for the voters.
+1 on Chappaquidick.
Hmm Studds
You're right it wasn't the Dems didn't DO A DAMN TIHNG ABOUT Studds, they still let him continue his job.You wrote:
but the response in these cases by the party leadership was not equal.
In 1983, then-Democratic Rep. Gerry Studds of Massachusetts was caught in a similar situation. In his case, Studds had sex with a male teenage page -- something Foley hasn't been charged with.
Did Studds express contrition? Resign? Quite the contrary. He rejected Congress' censure of him and continued to represent his district until his retirement in 1996.
He didn't resign and he ACTUALLY had sex, PROVEN, all Foley has been PROVEN to do has been the e-messages
Hmmm interesting.
Last edited by AlbertWesker[RE] (2006-10-17 23:30:12)