They only tell you half the story — and other Foley updates

In the interest of keeping the Foley scandal as clear in people's minds as possible, I'm posting a new entry with information recently discovered by me while surfing the "tubes" of the Internet.

Is the GOP revising history?
If you've been paying attention, you've noticed that the Foley scandal is causing a ruckus, what with the Fox News fuck-up and Republicans trying to save face — poorly, I might add. Democrats are calling them out for this scandal. (Just think: a homosexual sex offender from the party of "morals" and "family values!") But in response, Republicans are trying to remind Democrats not only of the Lewinsky scandal (as if an affair between consenting adults is worse than lewd conduct involving a minor legally unable to consent), but also of a certain Massachusetts representative, Gerry Studds, as if to say "You're one to talk!"

Democrat Studds was the first openly gay national politican in the US, and served in the House from 1973 to 1997. In the same year he started his first term in Congress, he had a sexual relationship with a 17-year-old male Congressional page. While a minor, the page was of consenting age at the time it happened, and had in fact consented. Studds's actions were discovered by the House Ethics Committee, and the House nearly unanimously voted in favor of censuring Studds in 1983, nearly ten years after the relationship happened.

So you see, the Democrats have no right to hold Republicans accountable for Foley. Right?

But there's a problem here. They only tell you half the story.

Studds was only one half of the 1983 Congressional page sex scandal. The other half was Representative Dan Crane, a Republican from Illinois.

Crane served in Congress from 1978 to 1984. In 1980, he had a sexual relationship with a 17-year-old female Congressional page, which was also consensual. Both his and Studds's relationships were discovered in the same time period, and Crane was censured alongside Studds. Crane ran for re-election in 1984 and was defeated, while Studds continued as a member of the House, re-elected five times, until 1997.

In reaction to the Foley scandal, Republicans such as Sean Hannity of Hannity and Colmes are reminding us that Democrats have had their fair share of sex scandals, citing the scandal surrounding former Representative Studds. While you can't deny the Democratic party's scandals, it is highly suspicious that they are focusing on Gerry Studds, who you have to admit is a horribly convenient double-whammy for Republicans — a Democrat and a homosexual! — while making little mention of Dan Crane.

So Republicans, whose party is known for its homophobic sentiments, are reminding us of a homosexual Democrat's actions while too conveniently forgetting a heterosexual Republican's actions? I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions on this.

One more aspect of the Foley scandal is clarified.

First his party — and now his name!
I'm not sure whose fault this is. Most likely no one's. Maybe lots of people mix up names very easily. But as if getting a party change from Fox News wasn't enough, Mark Foley gets a name change too.

A small percentage of bloggers talking about the Foley scandal are referring to a Tom Foley.

Tom Foley was a member of the House, a Democrat from Washington, from 1965 to 1995. He was the Speaker of the House beginning in 1989 until he was defeated in the 1994 election, the one in which Republicans gained conrol of Congress. He was the second representative in US history not to be re-elected while sitting as Speaker.

Let me clarify for people: First of all, Mark Foley is a Republican! Second of all, it's Mark Foley, not Tom.

Homosexuals are evil boogy-men hiding in your closet!
Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post has a point, of course (as does Ron Beasley, on whose blog I found a link to Robinson's article):

Let's deal with the circumstance that dares not speak its name: How much of the Mark Foley scandal's impact is due to the fact that he's a gay man who preyed on young boys?

We must ask ourselves: Could the Republican party try to milk this scandal in an attempt to regain support for their homophobic opinions? We must be vigil in case they do, and be ready to call them out for their obvious bias against homosexuals.

I hope my post was plenty informative.

Until my next entry, folks!

— Athelwulf