Posted on 10/20/2006 4:58:22 AM PDT by Graybeard58
Upon his death Saturday, former Rep. Gerry Studds, D-Mass., got a hero's send-off by The New York Times because he was the first openly homosexual congressman and a champion of homosexual rights. He was beloved by the Times, too, because he refused to resign after his censure by the House for his homosexual affair with a teenage congressional page.
But the Times lamented that the resignation of Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla., "revived interest in Mr. Studds' own dalliance with a teenage page in 1973." Dalliance? As in "playful flirtation"? Here's what the investigative report of the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct had to say about Mr. Studds' "dalliance":
Shortly after he was elected to his first term in 1973, Mr. Studds, then 36, lured a 17-year-old page to his Georgetown apartment, plied him with vodka and cranberry juice and then had his way with him. The page said he and Mr. Studds had sex under similar circumstances "at least three or four additional" occasions before they traveled to Portugal in July 1973 where they had sex "every two or three days" during their nearly three-week trip. Two other former pages testified they had to rebuff Mr. Studds' unwanted sexual advances.
Though his predations were well known to Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill, they were not revealed until 1983 when a Republican backbencher, Newt Gingrich, finally blew the whistle. At the time, Mr. Studds said his actions "did not constitute improper sexual conduct." The Times agreed and said nothing about the Democratic leadership's failure to respond to the threat Mr. Studds posed to pages. But the world now knows the Studds Standard does not apply to Republicans as the Times made clear in its Oct. 3 editorial, "The Foley matter": "That House leaders knew Representative Mark Foley had been sending inappropriate e-mails to Capitol pages and did little about it is terrible."
What's terrible is a newspaper so blinded by partisanship that it believes unwanted electronic solicitations by a Republican congressman are scandalous while a certifiable Democratic homosexual predator deserves a fawning obituary.
Ping to a Republican-American Editorial.
If you want on or off this ping list, let me know.
Bookmark for later. I've got a lib professor or two that I'm going to bash over the head with this.
ping for later use in the WOM
What is the WOM?
I'm shocked, shocked!
Bawny Fwank was doing the same thing to young boys and nobody cares about that. How many young boys lives are destroyed for Political Correctness??
Pray for W and the Election
Thanks for posting this. Let's see if I have this right? Studds was a courageous gay pioneer and Foley is a despicable gay pervert? One had sex, the other sent emails and IM's. Would Foley have been more "heroic" if he'd actually had sex with the pages?
Has Franks been credibly accused of sex with a minor?
War on morons? maggots?
I was going to say War on the Media...but maggots and morons work too-all synonymous.
Barney Franks was reprimanded in July '90 by Congress because his boyfriend was running a bisexual brothel out of Franks' basement. MA reelected him in November of '90.
I am aware of that but the implication in #7 was that Franks was somehow involved with minors and I had not heard that before.
Yes, he admitted he was having sex with those prostitutes in his basement.
Pray for W and Our Troops
Not only did one have sex with an underage page, but it looks like the other didn't get down an dirty in the IM's until the pages were former pages over the age of 18. That's a big difference.
Barney Frank put an ad in Gay publications looking for a boyfriend while on the House Armed Services Committee during the height of the Cold War. The Soviets combed these ads looking to compromise government officials and staffers. Barney seemed very pro-Soviet in those days.
Studds was totally non-apologetic. He said that the homosexual sex between him and the 17 year-old page was the most rewarding experience of the young man's life.
Just like almost every other democrat in congress.
Were they minors as was implied in #7?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.