<p>Foley not the only ‘Problem’.</p>
<p>A source close to a former House clerk says Jim Kolbe, R-Ariz., was also one of a small number of “problem members” of Congress who spent too much time socializing with pages.</p>
<p>Trandahl Names Kolbe as a ‘Problem’ With Page Program, Source Says.</p>
<p><a href=“http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/10/trandahl_names_.html[/url]”>http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/10/trandahl_names_.html</a></p>
<p>Not really.</p>
<p>People are people (meaning they’re all flawed) regardless of political perspective. What may be a bit more interesting is how the parties respond to public discovery and airing of such flaws. I posted this elsewhere, but it appears to fit here, too:</p>
<p>What comes to mind is the recently departed (former) Rep. Gerry Studds (D-MA). Here’s a bit of information about a similar scandal from 1983 - essentially, Rep Studds had a homosexual relationship with a 17 year old male page in 1973. It became a scandal in 1983.
Here’s some info from Wikipedia ( <a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Co...ge_sex_scandal[/url]”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Co...ge_sex_scandal</a> ):</p>
<p>“Also in contrast to Crane, who left the chamber after his censure, Studds rejoined the other members of the House after his censure was read.[3] He called a press conference with the former page, in which both stated that the young man, who was 17, consented. Studds, who had been 36 at the time, claimed he did not break any U.S. laws in what he called a “private relationship.”[4][5][6] He continued to be reelected until his retirement in 1996.” </p>
<p>Studds actually had sex, probably multiple times, with a 17 year old male page. It is uncertain, at best, if Foley ever had sex with a page - male or female. So here we have the Republican Foley apologize and promptly resign in public disgrace, while the Democrat Studds brazenly stayed put and carried on, sexually, who knows how after that. The other party to that 1983 scandal was a Republican - Dan Crane (R-Ill), who had an affair with a female page in 1980. Crane also resigned in disgrace.</p>
<p>That was in 1983 and isolated incidence. In 2006 party of family values is loaded with child molesting pedophiles, crooks, convicted congressmen, liars. You name it and I can give you a name.</p>
<p>Studds stayed in office until 1996. No party has a lock on virtue.</p>
<p>Politics aside, inappropriate or even criminal behavior should be dealt with promptly and fairly. The Republicans have done this. No one is getting away with anything.</p>
<p>Political policy differences, poured into statements and positions, can come across as untrue or false to the other side. Calling them ‘lies’ really is kind of inflammatory. This seems to be a recent event but I don’t see it as helpful, personally. The two sides need to cooperate on national policy.</p>
<p>Cooperate yes. But don’t you think the current ruling party’s mantra is,“Are you with us or…?”</p>
<p>That appears to be the Administration’s position, but Bush is a lame duck. I would expect to see Republican Members to be more independent thinking in the next two years.</p>
<p>For example, Bush has already dropped the Stay the Course mantra (sorry, mini - the phrase is history) and has now expressed disappointment with progress in Iraq. I think this is good. This is probably the main issue, I would guess. Everything else is generally in decent shape or being addressed - the economy, domestic security and so on.</p>
<p>BUSH: We will stay the course, we will help this young Iraqi democracy succeed, and victory in Iraq will be a major ideological triumph in the struggle of the 21st century. [8/30/06] from <a href=“http://thinkprogress.org/2006/10/24/snow-stay-the-course/[/url]”>http://thinkprogress.org/2006/10/24/snow-stay-the-course/</a></p>
<p>Oh my gosh he hasn’t said it since the end of August! I feel SOOO much better.</p>
<p>“People are people (meaning they’re all flawed) regardless of political perspective. What may be a bit more interesting is how the parties respond to public discovery and airing of such flaws.”</p>
<p>OK then why, WHY are Republicans so hard on Clinton for his marital indiscretions? </p>
<p>Anyway, I disagree with you. Marital infedility is bad enough, but it’s really no one’s business except the spouse’s. Many spouses choose to take back the cheating spouse and save the marriage. Not uncommon at all.</p>
<p>Preying on youth is far, far worse imo.</p>
<p>President Clinton was not impeached for infidelity. He was impeached for lying under oath. He was also disbarred for essentially the same reason. He could have probably escaped with all had he not done this under oath.</p>
<p>Studds got by with what he did because it was a different era. It’s amazing (and good, at least in this regard) how much things have changed. I just don’t understand, however, how the party of “family values” could start a war and wreak so much havoc on the families of our servicemen (not to mention Iraqi families). Our soldiers have been lied to about the length of their tours of duty in Iraq, and are being forced to return there even after being diagnosed with post-traumatic stress syndrome. If the stakes are so high, as Bush keeps saying, why not have a draft? This war, like all others, is going to be with us for a very, very long time.</p>
<p>The military is not the same as it was during WWII or even Viet Nam. Unwilling draftees can not or will not master the technical skills essential to driving an Abrams tank or operating complex communications equipment.</p>
<p>so it is ok to lie to those servicemen…a real good virtue.</p>
<p>“…He was impeached for lying under oath…”</p>
<p>See my response (today) in the ‘Bush…Google’ thread.</p>
<p>“This war, like all others, is going to be with us for a very, very long time.”</p>
<p>Sad words, but very true ones. This ill-advised war will indeed be with us for a very long time—certainly, if the response of the Democrats in Congress to the disingenuous Republican proposal for an immediate withdrawal, is any indication, we will remain in Iraq long after GWB has gone back to punching dogies in Crawford. Democrats my campaign on the popular desire of the American constituency to withdraw from Iraq, but they aren’t likely to follow up once they wrest control of Congress and/or the Senate from Republicans. They know they can continue along the current course that unfortunately has us bogged down in this fight, with the excuse that they inherited the mess, and are “doing the best they can” under extremely difficult circumstances. True enough. But I wish they wouldn’t pretend we can just pull out immediately, and all will be well.</p>