tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25679032.post116001997788470243..comments2023-11-05T07:10:04.935-05:00Comments on Sisyphus: There was a time when political leaders did not try to cover up scandals.Sisyphushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16514005363783760352noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25679032.post-1160068338617206922006-10-05T13:12:00.000-04:002006-10-05T13:12:00.000-04:00Barone looked back too and drew a different conclu...Barone <A HREF="http://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/baroneblog/archives/061004/the_mark_foley.htm?s_cid=rss:site1" REL="nofollow">looked back</A> too and drew a different conclusion,<BR/><BR/><EM>Yet 23 years ago, in 1983, the House administered a lesser punishment–censure–when Republican Dan Crane and Democrat Gerry Studds admitted to having had sex with two pages, Crane with a 17-year-old girl and Studds with a 17-year-old boy. So the standard seems to be that having sex with a serving page, for whom Congress has custodial responsibility, merits censure. But sending dirty IMs to a former page, for whom Congress no longer has custodial responsibility, merits the much harsher penalty of expulsion.</EM><BR/><BR/>Studds (a UU) defiant right threw it all and reelected repeatedly despite censure.<BR/><BR/>Hastert's my rep. I think when he found out, he threw Foley out... whether he should have known earlier... I don't know. But I like today's standard better.Bill Baarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07095486926836836714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25679032.post-1160022522952684522006-10-05T00:28:00.000-04:002006-10-05T00:28:00.000-04:00Surprisingly, Califano has his facts wrong. Crane...Surprisingly, Califano has his facts wrong. Crane didn't resign, but his constituents had the dignity to kick him out of office in the next election. I specifically remember running into him (while interning on the Hill) at a reception in the summer of 1984, and knowing of his misbehavior. The only guy who would talk to him was his brother, Congressman Phil Crane.<BR/><BR/>Of course, this article is every bit as partisan as blogosphere attacks. No credible evidence has been offered to demonstrate that House leadership was made aware of anything more than suspicious but non-explicit e-mails.<BR/><BR/>But why let those facts get in the way of a good, partisan rush to judgment?James Younghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15983017193858666436noreply@blogger.com