Comments on: Ted Strickland’s 1999 ‘Present’ Vote on H CON RES 107 — Part 1: Why It’s Being Brought Up http://www.bizzyblog.com/2006/10/10/ted-stricklands-1999-present-vote-on-h-con-res-107-part-1-why-it-should-be-brought-up/ The Business End of the Blogosphere Fri, 09 Jan 2009 20:39:47 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5 By: TBlumer http://www.bizzyblog.com/2006/10/10/ted-stricklands-1999-present-vote-on-h-con-res-107-part-1-why-it-should-be-brought-up/#comment-35029 TBlumer Wed, 11 Oct 2006 23:16:03 +0000 http://www.bizzyblog.com/2006/10/09/listen-to-this-phone-call/#comment-35029 #3, My recall is that the evidence on Reynolds was so obvious (12 counts) that only a fool (or a party worried about losing their majority, as occurred in 1994 anyway) would give have given him him the benefit of the doubt. I noted that Clinton pardoned Reynolds on other charges, so that criticism is off-base. I am not seeing evidence of physical contact between Foley and underage pages yet...waiting. And given that it is obvious that the Foley IMs were being shopped months ago, those who were doing the shopping and allowing whatever Foley was doing to continue are equally culpable, period. I am totally through belaboring the dreadfully obvious. And besides, this post is primarily about Ted Strickland and how he and his party handle things, and Strickland\'s fitness to be Gov, and not at all about the GOP. YOU changed the subject, and it will not happen again on this post. The Dems are the ones who lionized Studds, and plenty of them thought he was hero enough to promote him and give him a committee chairmanship. #3, My recall is that the evidence on Reynolds was so obvious (12 counts) that only a fool (or a party worried about losing their majority, as occurred in 1994 anyway) would give have given him him the benefit of the doubt.

I noted that Clinton pardoned Reynolds on other charges, so that criticism is off-base.

I am not seeing evidence of physical contact between Foley and underage pages yet…waiting. And given that it is obvious that the Foley IMs were being shopped months ago, those who were doing the shopping and allowing whatever Foley was doing to continue are equally culpable, period.

I am totally through belaboring the dreadfully obvious.

And besides, this post is primarily about Ted Strickland and how he and his party handle things, and Strickland\’s fitness to be Gov, and not at all about the GOP. YOU changed the subject, and it will not happen again on this post.

The Dems are the ones who lionized Studds, and plenty of them thought he was hero enough to promote him and give him a committee chairmanship.

]]> By: tw http://www.bizzyblog.com/2006/10/10/ted-stricklands-1999-present-vote-on-h-con-res-107-part-1-why-it-should-be-brought-up/#comment-34984 tw Wed, 11 Oct 2006 18:35:05 +0000 http://www.bizzyblog.com/2006/10/09/listen-to-this-phone-call/#comment-34984 I notice that, while you were able to paste my line about nobody lying for Reynolds in cool italics, you didn't bother to refute it. Reynolds maintened his innocence, and (maybe foolishly) his contemporaries gave him the benefit of the doubt. Reynolds should have resigned prior to his trial, but that is on him. You like to note that Clinton pardoned Reynolds, but neglect to note that he served his 2.5 year sentence for sexual misconduct, and was 3.5 years into another term for bank fraud - that was the offense to which he was pardoned. And if you have a problem with the Rainbow Coalition, take it up with Jesse Jackson. I see where you are going, trying to draw correlations between Foley and Studds. The difference is: a - Both Studds and the page agreed that it was a consentual relationship. b - The page was not underage (although still far too close in my opinion), and c - Studds wasn't hiding his sexuality for fear of alienating his own party. Is Studds a hero? No, but he isn't the predator that Foley is either. Now, it may come to pass that the allegations against Mark Foley are unfounded, that is yet to be seen. But I know that I would feel the same way about the Democratic leadership if they had protected somebody in the same circumtances. I do, however, find it interesting that you need to somehow make this somebody else's fault. It is a running theme in the GOP - if you can't hide it or lie about it, blame somebody else. I notice that, while you were able to paste my line about nobody lying for Reynolds in cool italics, you didn’t bother to refute it. Reynolds maintened his innocence, and (maybe foolishly) his contemporaries gave him the benefit of the doubt. Reynolds should have resigned prior to his trial, but that is on him. You like to note that Clinton pardoned Reynolds, but neglect to note that he served his 2.5 year sentence for sexual misconduct, and was 3.5 years into another term for bank fraud - that was the offense to which he was pardoned. And if you have a problem with the Rainbow Coalition, take it up with Jesse Jackson.

I see where you are going, trying to draw correlations between Foley and Studds. The difference is: a - Both Studds and the page agreed that it was a consentual relationship. b - The page was not underage (although still far too close in my opinion), and c - Studds wasn’t hiding his sexuality for fear of alienating his own party. Is Studds a hero? No, but he isn’t the predator that Foley is either.
Now, it may come to pass that the allegations against Mark Foley are unfounded, that is yet to be seen. But I know that I would feel the same way about the Democratic leadership if they had protected somebody in the same circumtances.
I do, however, find it interesting that you need to somehow make this somebody else’s fault. It is a running theme in the GOP - if you can’t hide it or lie about it, blame somebody else.

]]> By: TBlumer http://www.bizzyblog.com/2006/10/10/ted-stricklands-1999-present-vote-on-h-con-res-107-part-1-why-it-should-be-brought-up/#comment-34706 TBlumer Tue, 10 Oct 2006 19:32:41 +0000 http://www.bizzyblog.com/2006/10/09/listen-to-this-phone-call/#comment-34706 #1, no, yours is the nice try, but you did not make the sale. <em>Nobody was ever accused of lying or covering up facts to protect Reynolds. He did all the lying himself.</em> Democrats did not tell Reynolds to resign when he was charged in 1994 with sex crimes against minors. If allowing him to represent their party in the face of those indictments during an election is not protecting him, what is? Democrats did not demand resignation Reynolds until AFTER his conviction, even though there had to plenty of indicators that he was going to get hammered in court (contrast this to Duke Cunningham being forced out well before his conviction). And finally, Bill Clinton went to the trouble of pardoning Reyolds on other crimes in 2001. Reynolds currently works for the Rainbow Coalition. After the crimes he has committed, and even though (as far as I know) there is not anything in place at the RC that I am aware of to shield kids from exposure to Reynolds, who is a registered sex offender (I guess there are a few things that cannot be pardoned away). The presence of Reynolds at RC is just another example of Democrats protecting (finding jobs for) their own. I am not making any contention about what STRICKLAND thinks of the current situation. If he has said anything, I do not know of it. I will not defend Foley, but I do not and will not accept that any underage pages were physically harmed or physically abused as a result of him until I see information showing that. Meanwhile, Gary Studds did have physical contact and an affair with a page, and is a Dem hero. In Foleygate, there is also the unpleasant matter of the informers refusing to hand over authentic unaltered documents (IM messages, etc.) as reported by the Washington Post and refusing under questioning by the FBI to reveal where there info came from. The FBI/DOJ can get subpoenas, and there is no justification I can see for claiming confidentiality. This cannot help but lead to concerns that the Foley matter was an orchestrated smear by people who ALSO knew of whatever problem existed and ALSO covered it up for many months until the timing was right. The hypocrisy charge stands, and you sure as heck did not make the sale. And I can\'t help but thinking that if Foley were a Dem in identical circumstances, he\'d be lionized and promoted. #1, no, yours is the nice try, but you did not make the sale.

Nobody was ever accused of lying or covering up facts to protect Reynolds. He did all the lying himself.

Democrats did not tell Reynolds to resign when he was charged in 1994 with sex crimes against minors. If allowing him to represent their party in the face of those indictments during an election is not protecting him, what is?

Democrats did not demand resignation Reynolds until AFTER his conviction, even though there had to plenty of indicators that he was going to get hammered in court (contrast this to Duke Cunningham being forced out well before his conviction).

And finally, Bill Clinton went to the trouble of pardoning Reyolds on other crimes in 2001.

Reynolds currently works for the Rainbow Coalition. After the crimes he has committed, and even though (as far as I know) there is not anything in place at the RC that I am aware of to shield kids from exposure to Reynolds, who is a registered sex offender (I guess there are a few things that cannot be pardoned away). The presence of Reynolds at RC is just another example of Democrats protecting (finding jobs for) their own.

I am not making any contention about what STRICKLAND thinks of the current situation. If he has said anything, I do not know of it. I will not defend Foley, but I do not and will not accept that any underage pages were physically harmed or physically abused as a result of him until I see information showing that. Meanwhile, Gary Studds did have physical contact and an affair with a page, and is a Dem hero.

In Foleygate, there is also the unpleasant matter of the informers refusing to hand over authentic unaltered documents (IM messages, etc.) as reported by the Washington Post and refusing under questioning by the FBI to reveal where there info came from. The FBI/DOJ can get subpoenas, and there is no justification I can see for claiming confidentiality. This cannot help but lead to concerns that the Foley matter was an orchestrated smear by people who ALSO knew of whatever problem existed and ALSO covered it up for many months until the timing was right.

The hypocrisy charge stands, and you sure as heck did not make the sale. And I can\’t help but thinking that if Foley were a Dem in identical circumstances, he\’d be lionized and promoted.

]]> By: tw http://www.bizzyblog.com/2006/10/10/ted-stricklands-1999-present-vote-on-h-con-res-107-part-1-why-it-should-be-brought-up/#comment-34699 tw Tue, 10 Oct 2006 19:12:42 +0000 http://www.bizzyblog.com/2006/10/09/listen-to-this-phone-call/#comment-34699 Your contention that Ted Strickland's (and other Republican and Democratic member of Congress') outrage over Republican congressional misconduct in not taking action against Mark Foley's repeated unwanted sexual advances towards several congressional pages over many years in some way contradicts his lack of public comment on Mel Reynolds equally abhorrent affair with an underage campaign volunteer is disingenuous at best. The current clamor isn't over Foley's actions; he resigned. The problem is the willful disregard for pages' safety exercised by the Republican leadership in the interests of retaining control of Congress. Nobody was ever accused of lying or covering up facts to protect Reynolds. He did all the lying himself. I do agree, however, that Strickland has not provided details about his plans for Ohio that Ohioans want and expect. And yet he has consistently led Blackwell in polls by double-digits. This is more an indication of the utter distaste Ohians have for Blackwell. Nice try though. Your contention that Ted Strickland’s (and other Republican and Democratic member of Congress’) outrage over Republican congressional misconduct in not taking action against Mark Foley’s repeated unwanted sexual advances towards several congressional pages over many years in some way contradicts his lack of public comment on Mel Reynolds equally abhorrent affair with an underage campaign volunteer is disingenuous at best. The current clamor isn’t over Foley’s actions; he resigned. The problem is the willful disregard for pages’ safety exercised by the Republican leadership in the interests of retaining control of Congress. Nobody was ever accused of lying or covering up facts to protect Reynolds. He did all the lying himself.

I do agree, however, that Strickland has not provided details about his plans for Ohio that Ohioans want and expect. And yet he has consistently led Blackwell in polls by double-digits. This is more an indication of the utter distaste Ohians have for Blackwell.
Nice try though.

]]>