Forti's setting himself up for a fall-- the punishments of both Crane and Studds were recommended after a full-scale bipartisan Ethics Committee investigation requisitioned by the then-Speaker. Making this a partisan he-said, he-said misses the point of the do-nothingism in the Republican leadership, and is not going to stop the hemmoraging. But keep it up, Carl.

This is exactly why the Rs are going to lose the House and, probably, the Senate this year. Instead of dealing with the immediate situation, they point fingers to an incident almost 25 years ago. Rs hold their party out as morally superior to Ds (the party of "values"), but, amazingly, when Rs find themselves in trouble the only values exhibited are evasion and misdirection.

Actually Studds' affair was in 1973 and came to light in 1983, so instead of talking about an act from 23 years ago, the GOP is comparing this to an act from 33 years ago.

"Gerry Studds (D-MA) had sex with a 17-year-old male page in 1983*. He was reprimanded. Republicans wanted to censure him. But 79 Dems voted against upgrading the condemnation."

This is a Republican urban legend which Marc Ambinder appears hell bent to spread far and wide (why am I not surprised?)

Studds was censured, NOT reprimanded, although the latter was the penalty recommended by the House Ethics Committee. The vote to censure was 420 to 3.

(Source: "House Censures Crane and Studds," Washington Post, July 21, 1983, page A1)

Under Democratic Caucus rules, Studds was forced to give up his subcommittee chairmanship. I think we all remember the GOP caterwauling in a recent similar situation -- the elephants didn't want Tom DeLay to give up his Majority Leadership even after he was freaking INDICTED.

I'd would suggest Ambinder resign and go pursue his true calling as a Republican Party flack, but since that's pretty much what the National Journal and Hotline do anyway, why bother?

This is stupid! As billmon and even your link show this story as related above is wrong. Get it right.

Now, apparently it isn't ok to bring up something that happened twenty or thirty years ago when it's directed at the Dems. However, things alledgedly said thirty years ago by a Republican (Allen) are fair game.

No one on the Republican side is forgiving Foley. He deserves whatever he gets and I'm glad he's gone.

We're just upset at the hypocricy and righteous indignation from the other side. Both sides have their sleazeballs and crooks. The difference is, the Republicans are out of a job or in jail, while the Dems are still in office.

Hey Ambinder,

I think you need to come have a drink over at the whiskey bar, looks like the Studds dog won't hunt/

http://billmon.org/archives/002779.html

Wow. So instead of showing balls and taking responsibility the GOP plays politics by spending more time politicizing this whole thing using an old story instead of focusing on something far more important- our country's youth.
Pathetic.

the elephants didn't want Tom DeLay to give up his Majority Leadership even after he was freaking INDICTED.

billmon, is the rest of your commentary as mindless and ignorant as this? Studs was found guilty, and then punished.

An indictment is not a finding of guilt. In fact, the legal community has a saying "a prosecutor can get a Grand Jury to indict a ham sandwich."

Claiming that an indictment is as bad, or worse, than an actual finding of guilt, indicates you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

Yes, Studds and Crane were both censured. See http://www.infoplease.com/biography/us/congress/studds-gerry-eastman.html among many other sources that confirm this.

I knew this information was wrong as soon as I saw Instarube had cited it approvingly. So much for scholarship.

The historical account of the House censure vote (421-3), identical for both Crane and Studds (same vote I suppose).

See: http://www.house.gov/ethics/Historical_Chart_Final_Version.htm

Wow, so the Republicans lied about that as well. I'm not exactly shocked.

Dear god, what is it going to take for hotline guys to take what Republican flacks say with a grain of salt?

Yup - and the 17 year-old page stood by Gerry Studds side after he was censured, i.e. when the page was 27.

So if the 27 year-old former page said he wasn't a victim and that it was entirely consensual, and it happened in 1973, and that it was nobody else's business - you can't compare that to what Foley did.

I'm not defending what Studds did, but geez - it was common for people to get married at 18 years old in 1973.

Earlier commentors seem forget Studds actually had sex with a page.

In 2001 President Clinton PARDONED the former Democrat Congressman Mel Reynolds being found guilty of sex with a minor boy.

Is that "resent" enough for you?

"he was convicted on 12 counts of sexual assault, obstruction of justice and solicitation of child pornography. He resigned his seat on October 1, 1995."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mel_Reynolds

It's interesting to witness how the voters treated the Republican and how the Liberal Democrats felt about a man that had sex with a minor boy.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2509889

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21585

All Republicans involved should be removed from office.

All Democrats involved should be removed from office.

Clean it out. Double standard? Yes.

How did they respond in 1983? 1983?

The questions that should be asked, Mr. Forti, is how did the Republicans respond in 2006?

Billmon is correct -- Studds was censured. Please, Mr. Ambinder, try to do at least minimal fact checking.

Studds was serving as chair of a subcommittee when he retired in 1996. Apparently the punishment wasn't permanent.

1996, for those who are counting in their heads, was 10 years ago, not 33. If you were comfortable with a pedophile molester (those are the terms being tossed around casually by Democrats these days) serving alongside you as a subcommittee chair then, why would you expect others to behave differently now?

anonymous's reference to a bipartisan investigation misses a bit of context. It's likely that Democrats in the House, for example, were aware of Studds's problem but didn't say anything about it. Only after a televised report of sexual predation on Congressional pages--a report that Congress ultimately determined was unfounded--was there an investigation. In the present case, of course, the televised reports led directly to Foley's resignation, making the intervening Congressional investigation largely unnecessary.

for an example of a writer who actually CHECKS THE FACTS instead of relying on his gop minders for the party-approved spin, go read billmon:

http://billmon.org/archives/002779.html

Gee Marc, do you think it makes sense in a post for excoriating someone for not taking responsibility that you have the balls to correct it when the post itself is wrong?

What an asset you are to Hotline.

http://billmon.org/archives/002779.html

So a Democrat had sex with a minor 23 or 33 years ago, so what? Let's say for the sake of argument that the Studds case is as sordid and seamy as possible, so what does it have to do with now? Does it mean that Foley shouldn't be punished or Hastert shouldn't take responsibility?

What possible sense does it make for the response to Foley to be "But the Democrats ... !"

Grow up, for cryin' out loud.

The Republicans whining about the "moral indignation of the Democrats" is obsurd when to look at two facts: 1). the GOP offers itself as the party of moral superiority; that the Republicans were going to offer a better brand of leadership. 2). This guy was the chair of the missing and exploited children's caucus!!!!! How much hypocracy do you need to see to get pissed at these guys!!!! The fact that the GOP puts itself out there as the party of morality is the principal reason Dems are so pissed, and why the issue of Studds and Patrick Kennedy and Mr. Jefferson of Mississippi all get tossed out the window and we focus on Foley.

GregD,

Billmon is refering to this fancy maneuver:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54572-2004Nov16.html

Cheers.

The comment that Bill Clinton pardoned, Mel Reynolds, a democrat charged and found guilty of sexual assault, obstruction of justice and solicitation of child pornography is, what can only be described as a "weasle".

Whilst Bill Clinton did indeed commute Mel's sentence, it was the sentence for bank fraud that Clinton commuted, not for the sexual offenses which Mel fully served. Even the wikipedia article mentioons that.

I guess when you throw enough shit some of it should stick, but the Republican attempt to turn this into a bipartisan issue is looking increasingly desperate.

By the way, a debate on the relative morality of the two parties would be welcome, but I think it should start with correct facts (Studds was censured), as well as the complete story. The author has muddled this story badly, but he may have been citing the vote that rejected the reprimand and set up the vote for censure. If this is true, he should get the story straight and cite that, but also cite the same vote (to reject reprimand) for Crane, which, according to the blogger billmon above was also partisan and likely had more dissenting Republicans.

So, sure, let's debate who is scummier (it's easy! they all are!), but let's start with real facts and the full story.

At the end of the day, there is really no value in a completely partisan blog, such as this one or Instarube's, where the readers do the actual research after the authors get the facts wrong.

GregD:

billmon, is the rest of your commentary as mindless and ignorant as this? Studs was found guilty, and then punished.
...
Claiming that an indictment is as bad, or worse, than an actual finding of guilt, indicates you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

Uh, no, sorry. Studds was never accused of a crime, indicted or tried. Therefore he was not "found guilty." He was censured (by a Democratic House) for his non-criminal but unsavory behavior, along with Republican Dan Crane. DeLay was actually indicted by a grand jury, which is considerably more serious than anything involving Studds (or Crane). The Republican House never even considered censuring DeLay.

I don't think you should be accusing others of not knowing what they're talking about.

Just to put it on the record: I personally think Studds should have been drawn and quartered. And if the Dems later gave him back his chairmanship, then it only demonstrates why they got their sorry asses thrown out of power in '94. But the facts are the facts, and Ambinder both mistated and mangled them to try to help out his GOP buddies. If he had any guts at all he would correct his post. But I think we can see that he doesn't.

"In 2001 President Clinton PARDONED the former Democrat Congressman Mel Reynolds being found guilty of sex with a minor boy." posted by 'foley is sick'
I think facts need to be checked on this one. Clinton commuted reynold's sentence of obstruction after Reynolds completed 26 months of a 26 month sentence for sex with a minor. He served more than half of his obstruction sentence (45 months of a 72 month sentence, I think) when Clinton had it commuted. He spent the remainder of it in a halfway house. This isn't your typical pardon.