News and Commentary on Politics, Media and Culture

I’ve heard plenty of predictions and even more calls by conservatives calling for Speaker Hastert to resign. I think that is the completely wrong thing to do. If Republicans capitulated to every dirty trick and hypocritical call by the Democrat leadership there wouldn’t be a single Republican left in Congress.

Rather than stay on defense and play into the hands of the MSM and liberal game players the Republicans should fight back. Play the same game; when confronted on these issues the best defense is a good offense. This isn’t circling the wagons as many would like to characterize it as; it’s called setting the record straight.

President Clinton says that Democrats become paralyzed in the face of new media scrutiny. That is true. Democrats self destruct when confronted with facts that run counter to their claims. Make the story about them with facts that point out their hypocrisy.

For instance, when the media confronts Speaker Hastert about stepping down he should repeat the facts and follow it up with a clear cut example. Perhaps saying something like “Speaker Pelosi didn’t seem too concerned when she joined Democrats to recommend admitted sexual predator Gerry Studds to leadership positions during his tenure in Congress.”

Democrat Gerry Studds admitted to having a sexual relationship with a 17 year old male page in 1983. The Congressional Ethics Committee report indicates that Studds actually traveled out of the country with the page while under the influence of alcohol.

Newt Gingrich wanted to kick Mr. Studds out of Congress along with Republican Dane Crane who had sex with a 17 year old female page. But the House voted instead to censure the both of them. Studds turned his back on Congress during the censure, refused to apologize and served another 5 terms in Congress while holding many leadership positions at the behest of Democrats. It is reported that he received a standing ovation from Democrats after his censure.

Why does the Gerry Studds case matter? In my mind it is relevant because Democrats have turned the acts of Rep. Mark Foley around as a referendum on all Republicans when we now know that the Republican leadership had much less information than was previously implied. Democrats on the other hand have acted quite differently when confronted with worse evidence about their own.

You can read the sordid details at the bottom of this post.

When former President Clinton appeared on Fox news with Chris Wallace he was sending a message to Democrats. Challenge your accusers, look them right in the eye and bring them to the mat. For whatever reason Republicans don’t do this. But they should. Congress is too important to hand over without a fight. If they don’t then Republicans deserve to lose.

========================================

The Free Republic excerpted the report of the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct regarding Rep. Gerry E. Studds’ (D-Mass.) relationship with a male page. Here is a copy of that post:

Excerpts From Committee Report on Rep. Studds and Male Page

The Washington Post, First Section; A10 July, 15 1983 1015 words

Excerpts From Committee Report on Rep. Studds and Male Page

Following are excerpts from the report of the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct regarding Rep. Gerry E. Studds’ (D-Mass.) relationship with a male page:

“One former page testified under oath that he had heard a rumor that Rep. Studds had traveled overseas with a congressional page. He could not recall the name of the page who allegedly made the trip. In another deposition, another former page provided the name of the page rumored to have traveled overseas with Rep. Studds.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com …

________________________________________

TOPICS: Extended News; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; US: Florida; US: Massachusetts

KEYWORDS: FOLEY; HASTERT; HOUSE; PAGE; STUDDS

________________________________________

I dug this up off of Nexis.

“In his deposition, the male page who had allegedly traveled to Europe with Rep. Studds testified that he had visited Rep. Studds’ apartment at the congressman’s invitation on at least three or four occasions in 1973 and that Rep. Studds and the page had engaged in sexual activity on each of those occasions.

“The page testified that in late July, 1973, Rep. Studds invited him to travel abroad during the August recess. The page agreed, and the two took a 2 1/2 week trip together abroad. According to the page’s testimony, they engaged in sexual activity every two or three days during this trip.

“The page was 17 years old during the time he testified that he had a sexual relationship with Rep. Studds; the relationship may have begun when the page was 16, since the page was born in the spring of 1956. At that time, Rep. Studds was 36 years old.

“Two other former pages, both male, have stated under oath that Rep. Studds made sexual advances to them in 1973 while they were serving as House pages. One was 16 or 17 years old at the time of the alleged incident; the other was 17. . . .

“The special counsel’s staff interviewed the former page who had traveled with Rep. Studds twice before his deposition. At each interview the page admitted traveling to Europe with Rep. Studds, but he denied that he had been sexually propositioned by the member, and he denied that there had been a sexual relationship between them.

“Then, just prior to his deposition, the page took aside a member of the special counsel’s staff and told him that he had not been telling the truth. He stated then, and testified under oath in his deposition, that he had a sexual relationship with Rep. Studds while serving as a House page during the spring and summer of 1973.

“The page testified that another page introduced him to Rep. Studds and a group of other congressmen at a restaurant in May or June, 1973. According to the page’s testimony under oath, sometime after this introduction, Rep. Studds invited the page to the representative’s house in Georgetown for dinner:

“Q. After you met Congressman Studds, did you and he get together again shortly after that?

“A. Yes. Shortly thereafter–I am not sure how long, how long it was–but I was invited to go out to dinner with him and I did. The dinner took place at his apartment in Georgetown. Would you wish a follow-up question?

“Q. The follow-up question would be what happened at that dinner?

“A. Well, we sat around and talked about abstract and general questions, all types and descriptions, until four in the morning, drinking vodka and cranberry juice, at which time I was told by the congressman that he was too drunk to give me a ride home and so he said, “Why don’t you sleep here?” and I did.

“At that point, according to the page’s testimony, the congressman engaged the page in sexual activity.

“The page testified that the sexual relationship continued after that first night:

“Q. Did you and the congressman get together subsequent to this?

“A. Yes. I would imagine we had dinner three or four additional times. Specifically I do not recall. But that is in the ballpark.

“Q. And did you engage in sexual activity each time?

“A. Yes.

“Q. When the congressman first invited you to have dinner and as you got to know the congressman, how did you feel in that environment, that a congressman was talking with you?

“A. I was flattered and excited.

“Q. Did you feel intimidated?

“A. No, I did not. I would like to state at this time–it would probably have been better if I had stated this in my opening statement–but the congressman or the Honorable Gerry Studds was an intelligent, witty, gentle man with I think a high level of insecurity. He did nothing to me which I would consider destructive or painful.

“In another time, in another society, the action would be acceptable, perhaps even laudable. Unfortunately this is not the case. I have no ax to grind with him. I have nothing negative to say about the man. In fact, I thought that he provided me with one of the more wonderful experiences of my life, if we exclude the instances of sexual experience which I was somewhat uncomfortable with. But I did not think it was that big a deal.

“Q. You said you felt uncomfortable with it, did you continue with him because he was a congressman, because he was someone you were impressed with?

“A. No. Well, I kept company with him because he was an intelligent man, a fun person to be with. If I could have had my druthers, I would have had the friendship that I had with the man without the sex. And I mentioned that to him.

“According to the page’s testimony, his sexual relationship with Rep. Studds continued during their trip together in August, 1973. The evidence does not indicate that any official funds were used for the trip. The page testified that he paid his own air fare to Europe, and a portion of the cost of meals and lodging with Rep. Studds. The page testified that his relationship with Mr. Studds ended when they returned to the United States. The page also testified as follows:

“Q. Did Mr. Studds ever offer any preferential treatment or offer you any inducement to have a relationship with him?

“A. No, he did not.

“Q. Did he ever threaten you or coerce you if you did not have a relationship with him?

“A. He did not. Essentially all I needed to do to stop the relationship was walk out the door, or not go in the door, as the case may be.

“The page testified that he is not homosexual and he had not had a homosexual relationship prior to his relationship with Rep. Studds.”

Copyright 1983 The Washington Post

Other Perspectives on Speaker Hastert and Democrat Victory Laps:

• Hot Air: Foley follies: Friday all-purpose thread
• Blue Crab Boulevard: Nancy Takes Another Victory Lap
• Mary Katharine Hamm: On the Ground and All Foleyed Out
• Iowa Voice: Foleygate: An Overview Pt III
• The Wide Awake Cafe: Dennis Hastert Should Hang in There

 Send this post a Friend  

8 Comments »

Trackback URI | Comments RSS