Thursday, October 05, 2006

New Policy?

According to Reuters,
Summoning reporters as U.S. lawmakers were beginning another investigation of the case that has sparked a political firestorm four weeks before critical U.S. elections, House Speaker Dennis Hastert planned to outline proposed reforms, the aides said.
I can only imagine..... "Our new policy is that, when presented with information upon which it is obvious that we should take immediate action, next time we promise to stand up to the staffers who to this date have blocked us at every turn. We're calling them 'staffers' because it would be gay-basing to call them gay. But they are. Staffers."


  1. Has it ever been settled whether the information that was available "a year ago" was the e-mails which were "inappropriate" but not criminal . . . and appear to fall into a grey zone; or the IMs which should have been sent to the FBI as soon as they were discovered? - CWD

  2. I think that, like a spot on a blue dress, that will all come out in the wash.

  3. I still think an investigation into the House leadership's knowledge and response is appropriate, but I find the response of the Democratic party a wee bit hypocritical in light of their history in the area:

    Washington (The Weekly Standard) Vol. 012, Issue 05 - 10/16/2006 - IN 1983, REPRESENTATIVE GERRY Studds, Democrat of Massachusetts, admitted to having sex with a 17-year-old male page. He was censured by the House of Representatives. During the vote, which he was compelled by House rules to be present for, Studds turned his back on the House to show his contempt for his colleagues' reprimand. He was not expelled from the Democratic Caucus. In fact, he was his party's nominee in the next election in his district--and the next five after that--winning reelection each time. He remained in the bosom of the Democratic Caucus in the House for the next 13 years.


  4. Is there any indication of a cover-up? I understand that the Studds allegations were a decade old when they were raised, and that a Republican Congressman was censured at the same time for a three-year-old incident involving a 17-year-old female page. (Words you won't often hear from me - I think Gingrich had it right on that one. I would have voted to expel them both.)

    I don't see, though, how this is specifically relevant to Foley, save possibly that a current censure vote would probably be unanimous, whereas the Studds/Crane censure votes were 421-3.

  5. (In that very first question I asked, I mean in relation to Studds.)

  6. Twenty-five years ago, Democrats did not expelled from the Democratic Caucus, although Democrats voted to censure him. Therefore, Democrats now have no right to criticize the Republican leadership for covering up Foley's behavior.

    Did I miss something? Should I throw in Chappaquiddick too?


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.