Re: While we're forgetting things, Laura Bush killing her old boyfriend and -- Albany MSNBC Refugees Forum

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, [2], 3, 4, 5 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: Tuesday, October 24, 02:48:21pm
Author: BJ
Subject: Re: While we're forgetting things, Laura Bush killing her old boyfriend and
In reply to: Ace 's message, "Sorry BJ, but there is a difference between being found not guilty and being innocent." on Monday, October 23, 04:46:24pm

http://www.courierpress.com/news/2006/oct/18/gop-cant-point-at-studds-case/

GOP can't point at Studds case
To the editor:

Almost immediately after the Mark Foley scandal became news, Republicans in Washington and across the United States resurrected the controversy that surrounded Gerry Studds and his infamous censure in 1983. Studds was a Democratic congressman from Massachusetts who was censured for having a relationship with a male House page in the early 1970s. Studds, who was re-elected several times after his censure, refused to face the House leadership as his censure was read aloud.

The Republicans are using the Studds case to demonstrate how much better the GOP handles such occurrences than Democrats. Indeed, they have very short collective memories.

What they will not mention is the "other" censure that occurred the same day. Republican Rep. Dan Crane, who represented a district in Southern Illinois, was also censured for an illicit relationship with a 17- year-old female page. Crane had gone so far as to move the high school junior into an apartment in Georgetown. After eight months, she ended the relationship and told her parents.

At the censure hearing, Crane was defended by fellow Illinois Republican Henry Hyde, who would, 15 years later, chair the impeachment hearings against President Bill Clinton.

According to transcripts, Hyde implored his fellow representatives that Crane had suffered the loss of his reputation and probably his marriage, and that as good Christians, we are all taught to "hate the sin but love the sinner."

"My friends," he said, "it's time we showed Dan Crane some love and allow him to keep his seat in this body." Instead of kicking Crane out, the House voted censure.

Crane did not resign, and he sought re-election to his seat in 1984. After the 1980 census, his district was redrawn and was combined into a larger one that included another Republican area, then represented by fellow Republican Tom Railsback. The two had to slug it out in a primary. The more conservative House GOP leaders helped Crane against Railsback. Democrat Paul Simon defeated Crane for re-election in 1984.

Republicans use with glee the Studds censure to show Democratic tolerance, probably since he was openly gay, but neither side of the aisle did the right thing in 1983. It opens a huge credibility gap on the part of Republicans to say Democrats did anything differently, because they did not. Responsible gay Americans were as dismayed with Foley as with Studds: Neither one represented mainstream gay citizens, as Crane's actions would not be representative of normal heterosexual male behavior. All three committed reprehensible actions and should have been forced to resign. However, voters should remember the selective memory of those who would point fingers at Democrats and the Studds case.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Like I keep insisting, there are scumbags on both sides. -- Ace, Thursday, October 26, 08:23:33pm