Republican wanted a pedophile re-elected

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by james_bond_3rd, Sep 30, 2006.

  1. Rep. Tom Reynolds (R) is chairman of NRCC, in charge of Republican's congressional campaign. He learned about Rep. Mark Foley (R)'s improper behavior last fall, per his own written statement:
    Reynolds is being accused of doing too little by the Democrats. The fair question is not so much what he didn't do (push for an investigation and/or for Foley's resignation). It is what he did afterwards: On May 10, 2006, months after knowing Foley's improper behavior, Reynolds contributed $5,000.00 to Foley's campaign. Family values be damned!

    I can't say about other Republicans. But clearly Rep. Tom Reynolds (R) is only interested in holding on to power.
  2. I wouldn't get too smug. Rep. Gerry Studds of Mass. was reelected after a scandal involving him having sex with a male page. The current scandal involves inappropriate text messages only, as far as I know. And the page's boss told everyone that it was not a big deal and the family just wanted the contact to stop. Rep. Barney Frank, Dem. of Mass., had a male prostitute living with him and intervened with the police on his behalf. Neither resigned or was seriously punished by their party, whcih controlled congress at the time. Of course, we know that Republicans are held to far higher standards than Democrats.
  3. Why would an innocent man resign?

  4. _____________________________________________

    Don't forget Sen. Inouye charged by Lenora Kwock for forcing himself on her sexually and later went through a Senate Ethics Committee investigation.
  5. Pabst


    Because Foley's conservative base won't put up with his behavior whereas a liberal Democrat has a tough time casting the first stone when it comes to sucking dick.
  6. kut2k2


    It's not the least bit surprising that you would totally miss the point.

    The issue isn't homosexuality, it's pedophilia.

    My bad: with you and the other reactionaries, the issue clearly is homosexuality. Looks like you'd be solidly in Foley's corner if he was soliciting teenage FEMALE pages.

    Like I said: unsurprising.
  7. Pabst


    While it's certainly true that not all homo's are pedophiles, per capita pedophilia is ASTRONOMICAL among homo's. Depending on the source it appears that around 30% of reported pedophilia is men to boys. Given that only around 2-4% of the male population is gay one can see the VAST degree of child abuse by homo's.

  8. Pabst


    Studds is remembered chiefly for his role in the Congressional page sex scandal in 1983, when he and Representative Dan Crane were censured by the House of Representatives for separate sexual relationships with a minor – in Studds's case, a 1973 relationship with a 17-year-old male congressional page.

    During the course of the House Ethics Committee's investigation, Studds publicly acknowledged his homosexuality, a disclosure that, according to a Washington Post article, "apparently was not news to many of his constituents." Studds stated in an address to the House, "It is not a simple task for any of us to meet adequately the obligations of either public or private life, let alone both, but these challenges are made substantially more complex when one is, as I am, both an elected public official and gay."

    As the House read their censure of him, Studds turned his back and ignored them. Later, at a press conference with the former page standing beside him, the two stated that what had happened between them was nobody's business but their own.

    Back onboard
    Studds was re-elected five more terms after the censure. He fought for environmental and maritime issues, gay marriage, AIDS funding, civil rights, and a variety of other gay issues. In 1995 the Republican-controlled Congress abolished the House Merchant Marine and Fishing Committee, of which he had been chairman.

    Since retiring from Congress in 1997, Studds has been a lobbyist for the fishing industry.
  9. It's interesting that the "conservative value" people continue to miss the point in this discussion. It shows clearly that the socalled "values" are just a pile of bull.

    They confuse homosexual with pedophile, and choose to ignore friendly reminders that the two are different. Using some twisted logic they argue that because Democrats defend homosexual behavior, therefore it is ok for them to defend pedophiles.

    Second, they choose to ignore the fact that the law pushed through by Foley etc that all internet explicit messages with minors under the age of 18 are illegal today. When Studds (what a bad name!) was caught in the 80's, there was no law against consensual sex between two people above the age of consent, which was (and still is) 16 in DC. Foley has only himself to blame that what he did violated the law.

    Third, if they really do hold the Republicans to such a high standard, then why did Reynolds continue to support Foley, and donated $5,000 to Foley's re-election campaign, after Reynolds found out that Foley was a pedophile?

    I have no sympathy towards either Foley nor Studds. And I think the 1980's Democratic party was pathetic. The people on this board that are still defending Foley or Reynolds are worse than pathetic.
  10. By the way, this is worth repeating:

    It is so much fun watching the "family values" conservatives defend a pedophile.

    I had never imagined such a day!
    #10     Oct 1, 2006