Re: OT: Dumping Denny Won't Do It "but it's a good start" - Hewlett Packard

This is a discussion on Re: OT: Dumping Denny Won't Do It "but it's a good start" - Hewlett Packard ; Are you really that naive that you think it is simply a republican problem? this isn't a problem of party, it is a problem of character. For example: Mel Reynolds (D), convicted in 1995 by an Illinois jury on two ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Re: OT: Dumping Denny Won't Do It "but it's a good start"

  1. Re: OT: Dumping Denny Won't Do It "but it's a good start"

    Are you really that naive that you think it is
    simply a republican problem? this isn't a
    problem of party, it is a problem of character. For example:

    Mel Reynolds (D), convicted in 1995 by an
    Illinois jury on two counts of solicitation of
    child pornography, three counts of criminal
    sexual assault, three counts of aggravated
    criminal sexual abuse, and four counts of
    obstruction of justice and granted clemency by
    Clinton and now working for Jesse Jacksons
    Rainbow Coalition working with youths.

    In 1983, two lawmakers were censured by the House
    of Representatives for having sexual
    relationships with teenage pages. Rep. Dan Crane,
    R-Ill., admitted to sexual relations with a
    17-year-old female page, while Rep. Gerry Studds,
    D-Mass., admitted to sexual relations with a 17-year-old male page.

    The ways each lawmaker handled the scandal and
    the consequences they faced afterward were very
    different. Crane apologized for his actions,
    saying, "I'm human" and "I only hope my wife and
    children will forgive me." He was subsequently voted out of office in 1984.

    Studds, who was openly gay, said the relationship
    was consensual and charged that the investigation
    by the House Ethics Committee raised fundamental
    questions of privacy. He won re-election the
    following year in a more liberal district than
    Crane's and served in Congress until his retirement in 1996.

    The scandals had repercussions for congressional
    pages as well. The Congressional Page Program
    which has been around for more than 150 years
    was overhauled and a board was created to monitor
    it. A dormitory for pages was created near the Capitol.

    --------------
    I guess the only slightly positive thing you can
    say is at least Foley left immediately and
    supposedly never had actual sex with the kids
    (the alcohol thing is such a joke) and Crane at
    least apologized, but he didn't quite.

    Another reason for term limits, keep these guys
    from becoming such power mad psycho's, at a
    minimum they should be subject to the laws that
    we are (many people don't realize that they
    aren't) and they should loose their seat when
    they break the law, currently they don't. When
    this all first broke I wrote my congressman and
    told him to push for Hastert to resign his
    leadership post. I don't care if all he knew
    about was the overly friendly emails, that should
    have sparked an investigation. I'm equally
    concerned that this information has been around
    for 3 years and no one did anything about it
    until it was politically expedient. If someone
    knew about this animal Foley and what was going
    on before a couple weeks ago and sat on it for
    political purposes, they should go to jail as well.

    At 07:42 AM 10/4/2006, J Dolliver wrote:
    >http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...av=hcmoduletmv
    >
    >It is a mark of the sheer panic sweeping the
    >ranks of Republican congressmen that one of
    >their most levelheaded members, Ray LaHood of
    >Illinois, has suggested that Congress abolish
    >its page program altogether in the wake of the Mark Foley scandal.
    >What conclusion are we supposed to draw from
    >LaHood's proposal? That members of Congress
    >cannot be trusted in the company of adolescents?
    >If so, why punish the adolescents? Whatever
    >happened in the Foley case surely wasn't the
    >fault of the pages to whom Foley came on
    >electronically, much less every teenager who has
    >worked, or would like to work, as a page.
    >
    >
    >If LaHood believes that pages pose an
    >irresistible temptation to his peers, there are
    >surely solutions straight out of the Republican
    >playbook that wouldn't punish the victims. How
    >about building a 700-foot fence around all Republican members of Congress?
    >
    >One thing is certain: Just dumping Denny Hastert
    >as speaker, as many conservatives are demanding,
    >won't clean up the Republican act. House
    >Majority Leader John Boehner -- No. 2 in the
    >House GOP hierarchy to Hastert's No. 1 -- now
    >says that the failure to do anything about Foley
    >since his e-mails first became known to the
    >Republican leadership is Hastert's responsibility.
    >But we also know that Boehner and colleagues Tom
    >Reynolds of New York, who heads the National
    >Republican Congressional Committee; John Shimkus
    >of Illinois, who heads the panel that oversees
    >the page program; and Rodney Alexander of
    >Louisiana, who received the first complaints
    >about Foley, had the same information Hastert
    >had, and presumably they noticed that Mark Foley
    >still walked among them as a member of Congress.
    >We know that Shimkus neglected to bring up the
    >Foley issue with Michigan's Dale Kildee, the one
    >Democrat on the committee that oversees the page
    >program. We know that all of them put their
    >concern for avoiding a scandal that might damage
    >their party's prospects over whatever fears they
    >may (and should) have entertained about Foley's
    >interactions with the Capitol's cadre of teenagers.
    >And should House Republicans toss Hastert
    >overboard, then both their leaders in this
    >session will have left the leadership in
    >disgrace. Tom DeLay, after all, is soon to stand
    >trial in Texas for abuses he is alleged to have
    >committed in his drive to secure the House
    >Republican majority by forcing through a
    >mid-decade redistricting in his home state. And
    >dissimilar as Hastert's inaction in the Foley
    >case and DeLay's action in the Texas
    >reapportionment may be, their motives were
    >indisputably identical: elevating the retention
    >of the Republican congressional majority over
    >any concerns about the other consequences --
    >some legal, some moral -- of their acts.
    >There were, of course, other ways to ensure that
    >majority short of such desperate expedients.
    >Congressional Republicans might have bethought
    >themselves to exercise some oversight on our war
    >in Iraq, at least forcing the administration to
    >articulate exactly what our strategy is.
    >They might have crafted a Medicare prescription
    >program less to the drug companies' liking that
    >didn't leave seniors having to fork over
    >thousands of dollars for medications once the
    >program's coverage ran out, as it has for many,
    >at mid-year. They might have raised the minimum
    >wage, something that, by the evidence of every
    >recent poll, a vast majority of Republican
    >rank-and-filers support. They might have raised
    >revenue to cover the cost of the war and all the
    >other programs they support. They might, in
    >short, have made an effort to address the nation's needs.
    >Instead, the larger purpose of the Republican
    >Congress has been to enrich the rich and to
    >cling to power by all means necessary -- with
    >the financial assistance of the grateful rich.
    >Purging Hastert, like dumping DeLay, does not
    >signal any shift in these priorities. Democratic
    >candidates challenging Republican incumbents are
    >well within their rights to note that their
    >opponent voted to give control of the House to
    >Hastert and DeLay in January of 2005 and to ask
    >why anyone would think he or she would make a
    >better choice next time. What would be
    >different? After all, in not sharing what he
    >knew about Foley with Kildee, Shimkus was merely
    >following the Republicans' practice of cutting
    >the other party out of all legislative
    >deliberations and running the House of, by and emphatically for themselves.
    >And who are the Republican members of Congress
    >who've opposed this? Who has voted for rules
    >that allow Democrats to offer amendments to key
    >bills from the floor of the House? Who among
    >them would consider not just defenestrating
    >Denny but also changing the way the Republican
    >Congress does business? Nobody springs to mind.
    >So -- dump the pages? Come now. Let's just dump the Republicans.
    >
    >* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
    >* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *



    Regards,

    Shawn Gordon
    President
    theKompany.com
    www.thekompany.com
    www.mindawn.com
    949-713-3276

    * To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
    * etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *


  2. Re: OT: Dumping Denny Won't Do It "but it's a good start"

    Shawn Gordon wrote
    >Are you really that naive that you think it is
    >simply a republican problem? this isn't a
    >problem of party, it is a problem of character.


    Besides, according to Fox News, Foley is a Democrat:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mn7qCzV5sNM

    Bruce

    * To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
    * etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *


  3. Re: OT: Dumping Denny Won't Do It "but it's a good start"

    At 10:23 AM 10/4/2006, Bruce Collins wrote:
    >Shawn Gordon wrote
    >>Are you really that naive that you think it is simply a republican
    >>problem? this isn't a problem of party, it is a problem of character.

    >
    >Besides, according to Fox News, Foley is a Democrat:
    >
    >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mn7qCzV5sNM


    yep, they screwed that up, but at least they fixed it for the later
    broadcast of the item. I've seen various news organizations screwe
    this up in the past, but it stood out this time because of the
    furor. Considering how much news has been dedicated to this and how
    often they got it right, it is fairly trivial.


    >Bruce



    Regards,

    Shawn Gordon
    President
    theKompany.com
    www.thekompany.com
    www.mindawn.com
    949-713-3276

    * To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
    * etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *


+ Reply to Thread