Does anyone else see the hypocrisy of democrats reaction to the Mark Foley scandal?

Question

**Admitted sexual relations with a 17 yr old Congressial page**

U.S. Rep. Gerry Studds (D), the first openly gay person elected to Congress died Saturday October 14, 2006 , his husband , Dean Hara said. Hara married Studds shortly after gay marriage was legalized in Massachusetts in 2004,

In 1983, Studds acknowledged his homosexuality after the page revealed he'd had a relationship with Studds a decade earlier, when the page was 17.

Studds defended the relationship as a consensual relationship with a young adult.

In 1996, Congress named the 842-square-mile Gerry E. Studds Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary after him in recognition of his work protecting the marine environment.

"His work on behalf of our fishing industry and the protection of our waters has guided the fishing industry into the future and ensured that generations to come will have the opportunity to love and learn from the sea," Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., said in a statement.

I would like to acknowledge the news media, Yahoo and the internet for providing the background material. And spell check for making me look gifted.

A don't want any pedophiles in positions of power - I am NOT defending Mark Foley.

My question was/is about hypocrisy!

At 17 - Mr Studd's page was a minor - no matter what he stated was "consensual".

It is also a farce that Mr Studd's Marine Sanctuary named after him in 1996. After he acknowledged his action and was censured for sexual misconduct by the House.

Answer 1

That story leaves the part about Studds flying his underage playmate out of the country for their trysts without parental permission.

You might also familiarize yourself with Mel Reynolds who had sex with a 16 year old girl. Bill Clinton pardoned him.

Then there is the infamous Barney Franks who used his office as a call boy center. Some of the prostitutes he turned out were underage but he never faced charges for it.

The word "hypocrites" doesn't begin to describe Democrats.

TO DUFFMAN: The Republicans are not defending Foley or his actions. They are asking Democrats why they are making a big deal out of a lesser situation than Studds commited and Studds received not one but three standing ovations. Studds actually had sex with minors, Foley did not. You must undestand the difference between actions and words.

Answer 2

Yeah well Hara never complained about it ...it was consensual and he married him so what is your problem? He was exposed by a homo hating republican...but it didn't work did it. Studd's did not hide that fact and his constituents and re-elected him without question.

Also, too, plus, besides...Gary Studds was the best friend to the study of marine life, NOAA and others as well as supportive of locality pay for the government workers on Cape Cod where they couldn't even afford to live.
The good man is gone now...he did his job well and will be missed for his dignity in trying times for all gays and his help for those issues he cared about, in his own back yard. Senator Kennedy was right to sing his praises. May he rest in peace now??? God speed to an honorable man.

Answer 3

All the Democrats have done is point out that the Republican leadership knew about this "slimeball" almost a year ago and did nothing about it. That's kind of messed up on the leadership's part - and it's right of the Democrats to point this out. Are you so devoid of brain-power that you think that the leadership has no obligation to get rid of a sicko like Foley on their own and not let him hang around for another year? The guy should have been kicked out of the party long ago, but instead the moron Republicans allowed the issue to stew until right before the election... so now his name stays on the ballot. Way to go Republicans! You've really helped my party out.

Answer 4

I didnt read anything in your comments from a current member of the House of Representatives. Most of the Democrats that served with Mr Studds are long gone. You cant hold the current Dems responsible for what the past ones have done.

Why are Republicans always reaching into the past to place blame? Are you ashamed of the present?

Answer 5

It would only be hypocritical if they didn't speak out against Studds, and now want to throw the book at Foley. I wasn't following politics in '83, but I doubt that the majority of Democrats were supportive of Studds at the time.

Child abuse is the worst thing that a human being can do. But I see one big difference between Foley and Studds. Foley's advances were unwanted, Studds were apparently welcome. It was still illegal and wrong, but consent goes a long way towards making it okay.

Answer 6

When a Congressman does inapporapraite things with the pages he should be forced to resign. It sounds stupid when Republicans try to defend Mark Foley by pointing out that a Democratic Congressman did the same thing 33 years ago. What Gerry Studs did 33 years ago, and what Mark Foley has been doing for the past 5 years are both indefensible.

Answer 7

Hypocrisy?? Democrats did not have anything to do with the Foley incident!
2ndly - Studds admitted his guilt, went back and stood election and was re-elected by his constituants

The difference I see is honesty
Foley and the republicans that covered for him have yet to be honest- they say, it was alchohol, it was because he was gay, it was because he was abused as a child....No admition of guilt

Answer 8

So this makes Foley and the current Republican daisy-chain innocent? Is that what you are implying?

The only difference between the Democrats and the Republicans is who steals the taxpayer blind.

Ideologically the country is pretty well divided between conservatives and fascists. Most of the fascists just happen to be Republicans right now.

Answer 9

Scandals are politicized for political gain. The Democrats will make hay while they can but its only a matter of time until the shoe is on the other foot again. It appears to me that there is way too much corruption on both sides.

Answer 10

I see a lot of hypocrasy in politics - on both sides. But in this situation the hypocrasy is much more glaring in the Democrats.

I'm sure several liberals will answer with examples of republican hypocrasy.

"Distact & redirect" is another political ploy. The republicans are doing it when they focus so much on Studds & the liberals who would rather give you examples of Republican hypocrasy than admit thier own are doing it, too.