Tuesday, October 03, 2006

Democrats and Their Tricks

Is anyone surprised at the timely revelation of the Mark Foley sex scandal?

Six years ago the Dems were formulating the timing of the George Bush DUI scandal, which almost cost Bush the 2000 election. Now with the president's popularity rising and oil prices falling, the Dems need a boost for the fall elections and... well....

From Yahoo news:

The fact that Foley resigned virtually within minutes of being told that ABC News had copies of his salacious e-mails and text messages indicates he at least felt shame for his actions. Can the same be said for Democrats?

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.


In 1989, Rep. Barney Frank, also of Massachusetts, admitted he'd lived with Steve Gobie, a male prostitute who ran a gay sex-for-hire ring out of Frank's apartment. Frank, it was later discovered, used his position to fix 33 parking tickets for Gobie.
What happened to Frank? The House voted 408-18 to reprimand him -- a slap on the wrist. Today he's an honored Democratic member of Congress, much in demand as a speaker and "conscience of the party."


In 2001, President Clinton, who had his own intern problem, commuted the prison sentence of Illinois Rep. Mel Reynolds, who had sex with a 16-year-old campaign volunteer and pressured her to lie about it. (Reynolds also was convicted of campaign spending violations.)

You get the idea. Democrats not only seem OK with the kind of behavior for which Foley is charged, but also they protect and excuse it.


We have a lot more questions about this whole affair. 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.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ibd/20061002/bs_ibd_ibd/2006102issues01

Look at all the problems this country faces, and then look what is splashed all over the headlines. It's not about solving America's problems - It's all about regaining power. This is the Democrat plan for America: Just keep throwing the mud and surely some of it will stick.

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

I am disappointed in you, Chris. I have been lurking around your blog for several months now and you usually show wisdom in what you write. It almost seems that you are justifying what this scumbag has done because 'everyone else is doing it.' I hope that I am reading this post wrong.

Are the Dem's using this to their advantage? Of course they are! What did you really expect? Have they 'manufactured' this? I think not.

Now this lowlife has come out and said he was molested as a child by a 'member of the clergy.' See there, it isn't his fault, he is a victim of his circumstances!

I'll just go back to 'lurk mode' now.

Blessings,
John

Malott said...

John,

I believe you used the correct term when you chose scumbag.

Do I believe the "timing" was manufactured for political gain? I think there is a very good possibility that it was.

The dishonorable congressman did the honorable thing and quit... as Democrat Studds should have... as Democrat Barney Franks should have... as Bill Clinton should have.

But you're right. I should have labelled Foley what he is - up front.

I appreciate your visits and your comments.

SkyePuppy said...

John & Chris,

If you look at the Democratic Party and what it stands for and the issues it promotes, there is no "scumbag" here.

Homosexuality is perfectly normal behavior, and the poor, ostracized Rep. Foley should be allowed to express himself the way he was born to do without all this hate-speech hounding him out of office.

The age of consent for homosexual behavior should long ago have been lowered to 16 or 17, so really there's no problem here. Foley didn't touch any pages during the program. He waited until after they had gone home, so no harm no foul. Let him keep his job. And celebrate his coming out, however reluctant it was.

Oh wait. That only works for Democrats. He's a Republican? Throw the scumbag out, and throw out the Republican House leadership with him, because they should have stopped him from using his position for such perverted, deviant, predatory actions against an underage child.

The Democrats have been having it both ways for a long time. They disgust me, almost as much as Foley, Studds, Franks, and Clinton do.

Malott said...

Skyepuppy,

You're the best.

You're the very best.

janice said...

It surprised me when I heard the dems coming out to condemn Foley. Aren't they the party who "celebrate" homosexual behavior and defend NAMBLA?
I agree they ALL should have, (well, I'll leave that comment to myself) resign and let the criminal charges bring about justice.