tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5973827.post116008098058435233..comments2024-01-11T07:40:01.736-05:00Comments on The Stopped Clock: New Policy?Aaronhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16523334580402022332noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5973827.post-1161153331777008662006-10-18T02:35:00.000-04:002006-10-18T02:35:00.000-04:00Twenty-five years ago, Democrats did not expelled ...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.<BR/><BR/>Did I miss something? Should I throw in Chappaquiddick too?mythagohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07138471078836187498noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5973827.post-1160503134156571592006-10-10T13:58:00.001-04:002006-10-10T13:58:00.001-04:00(In that very first question I asked, I mean in re...(In that very first question I asked, I mean in relation to Studds.)Aaronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16523334580402022332noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5973827.post-1160503099054571552006-10-10T13:58:00.000-04:002006-10-10T13:58:00.000-04:00Is there any indication of a cover-up? I understan...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.)<BR/><BR/>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.Aaronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16523334580402022332noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5973827.post-1160430293653136252006-10-09T17:44:00.000-04:002006-10-09T17:44:00.000-04:00I still think an investigation into the House lead...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:<BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>CWDAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5973827.post-1160368840874578392006-10-09T00:40:00.000-04:002006-10-09T00:40:00.000-04:00I think that, like a spot on a blue dress, that wi...I think that, like a spot on a blue dress, that will all come out in the wash.Aaronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16523334580402022332noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5973827.post-1160356153036300312006-10-08T21:09:00.000-04:002006-10-08T21:09:00.000-04:00Has it ever been settled whether the information t...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? - CWDAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com