Where's the outrage?

[Rodeo]

Dude, the House was controlled by the Dems when Studds was censured ... and what kind of comparison are you making?

The Repub leadership covered for a child predator.

What does that have to do with some constituients cheering for Studds?

[fastpat]

They're sliding into the typical "ours" vs. "theirs" in this thread. That's obfuscating fog for the real problems America and Americans now face.

We must face what the government has become; and that is a uncontrolled behemoth that endangers everyone of us far more than a couple thousand ragheads ever have or ever will.

Decide now if you're going to be a solution to the problem, or continue the status quo which is ever more dictatorship and police state.

[Rodeo]

BTW, just as a point of reference, when the Studds affair was exposed, it had happened 10 years prior.. The 17 year old was by then 27 years old, and appeared at a press conference with Studds to say the relationship was consensual.

Now, I'm saying this even though some of you will attack and say I'm condoning it, but I'm not. It was wrong.

But the fact is, people are much more inclined to punish bad conduct that occurred yesterday than bad conduct that occurred 10 years ago. That's probably a big part of the reason he got away with it back in the district.

Studds faced controversy in 1983 when one of his former pages revealed that he had had a sexual relationship with the congressman some ten years earlier. During the course of the House Ethics Committee's investigation, Studds publicly acknowledged his homosexuality, a disclosure that, according to an article in the Washington Post, "apparently was not news to many of his constituents."

In an address to the House, Studds stated, "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."

The House voted to censure Studds in July 1983. Although there was some adverse reaction in his district, a poll of registered voters conducted by the Quincy, Massachusetts Patriot Ledger revealed that 65 percent favored his remaining in office while only 28 percent thought that he should resign and 7 percent expressed no opinion.

[Nathans_Dad]

Just shows how wacked people in Massachusetts are...

BTW, the Repub leadership thing was a misread on my part, wikipedia talks about Newt demanding expulsion and then says he faced the Speaker and turned his backs to his fellow Congressmen when the censure was read. I just saw Newt and then Speaker and figured it was during the Repub Congress...

[Kevin Powers]

you want outrage? watch *Moyers on America-Capitol Crimes, The case of lobbyist Jack Abramoff*.

k