NBC Mentions Rep. Studds Sex w/Teen Page

Yeah, but his subject lines have a tabloid headline sensibility that sets him apart.

 

Pallister, derision toward d-b is a uniter, not a divider. Please don't mistake him for a serious political voice, a la F_B, Ace, Chris L. or Pope D_B

 

He was caught having sex 10 years after the act?

 

Do you suppose that the different results for Studds and Crane have something to do with Democrat voters think sex with underage teens is OK, while GOP voters don't? And then the Dems rail on Foley. In the end, the Dems think it's OK for ONLY DEMS to have sex with kids. The GOP got rid of Foley. The Dems gave Studds a standing ovation. And they still would today. What a sick bunch.

 

Good to know we can count on old tony to see the big picture.

 

No, I don't "suppose" any such thing. Life --- and elections --- is a bit more complicated than that.

Only a small percentage of people even vote. In the dark ages of 1983, even a smaller percentage had any idea that Studds or Crane had done anything wrong. And even a smaller percentage were going to let something that happened 10+ years previously affect their vote. And ultimately, voters will reward a congressman whom they believe has served his constituents well and don't tend to make 180-degree knee-jerk reversals because of 10-year-old scandals. Pretty simple.

The same GOP voters whom you say "punished" Crane by not voting for him in 1984 could have --- and should have --- been out in full force to vote for Studds' opponent all those times he won re-election. Obviously they "thought having sex with underage teens was OK" too . . . because it didn't move them to get out and vote.

 

I'm thinking that the reason dipshit Republicans are the only ones talking about Studds might have something -- just a little bit -- to do with the fact that it happened 20 YEARS AGO. Call me crazy.

Facts remain unchanged: Foley was trying to knock out some page ass, Republican leadership was warned multiple times about Foley's increasingly deviant behavior and did nothing.

The Republicans were willing to overlook pedophilia in the interest of politics. Damn, tony, where were all the moral Republicans during this?

The GOP: All about Morals and Values ... unless the 16-year-old is really hot.

 

dog, the moral Republicans did what exactly what they needed to do: stay the fuck away from Foley and let him hang himself. Guilt by association is a bitch, but how many of those on Team Elephant (the 200+) knew about this? Joe Blow from Montana isn't going to know exactly what Foley did, unless he was the one who told him directly to stop tapping ass.

I have a problem with the assertion that the GOP did nothing to stop Foley. My grandpa brought up something I didn't think of.

Grandpa: "Why should it be the GOP's (or the Dems') job to babysit these fools? They are grown-ass folks. If they don't listen to reason and continue doing deviant things, then that's on them as individuals, not the party."

The worst analogy to compare Congress is a college or pro football team. There are 535 adults on Capitol Hill. If you think that the party leadership on both sides is going to keep their charges in check, guess again. If you tell a bunch of college football players not to head to the bars after the game, or they will be arrested, and they head down there anyway, who's fault is that?

Is it your fault because you weren't there to prevent it, or theirs because they choose to ignore what you told them not to do? Congress is a bunch of fucking adults, like us. Foley chose to ignore the repeated warnings and fucked himself.

Let's get this straight as well: it the GOP House heads who were told of this, not the WHOLE fucking party. Lumping the rest of the bunch is pretty much calling them leeches as well. That's why, dog, the moral GOP as you call them has said nothing. Foley's bad news.

This shit would have happened to Democrats as well, that is the initial assertion of this thread (not comparing Studds to Foley). If you took out Studds' dilemma, this should be a wake-up call for the House Dems' leadership as well: nip any rotten shit in the bud, or get narc out. (SIDENOTE: It's amazing that there isn't enough individuals who want to call out shit on both parties. But that's another thread for another day).

Tapping pages' asses have happened before (and don't fucking lie and say it hasn't). Big difference is that shit get leaked out like a jelly filling in a doughnut today. Back then, it was discreet. Remember, Big Brother is watching and reading everything.

This is fucking amazing to me that we want to blame every single Republican, even if they are a regular joe working and could care less about the Foley deal, for enabling a fuck-up who couldn't control his freak factor.

 

That's fine.

But when a party wraps itself in a warm and fuzzy blanket of morality and family values to get your vote in 2000, 2002 and 2004 . . . the party must pay for the indiscretions of its individuals.

If you accept the benefits that come with playing the morality card, you must also accept the losses.

 

Remember back in 1983 there was no MSNBC or FOXNews. It was just the three major networks that provided the nation with its news and CNN was in its infancy. The Studds story was news the day it broke, the day the House censured him, and that's it. There weren't three 24-hour cable news channels hammering home the controversey day-after-day like there is now.

So although Studds offense was horrendous, he was able to paint himself as a victim, and the Republicans and offended Democrats didn't care enough to get out in force to vote him out. There was also no cover-up of Studds' activities. House Democratic leaders found out about it and moved to censure him, unlike today when the House Republican leaders apparently knew for years Foley was up to no good and did their Sgt. Schultz imitation "I know nuuuuthing, I see nuuuthing, I hear nuuuuuuthing" - that is until the public found out.

And as BTExpress said - the Republicans play the morals/family values card to get themselves elected in the Bush Era. So if they live by the morals/family values card, they die by the morals card. Foley could have pulled a Studds stood his ground, said he was being persecuted for his taste in sexual partners and seen if the voters still supported him, but chose not to. After all it was 16-17 year olds he was hitting on, not the pages' younger siblings so he could have tried for voter sympathy but didn't.