Well, They Won’t Have Him to Kick Around Anymore!

Gerry Studds has been the Right-Wing and GOP’s Talking-points answer to the Predatorgate Scandal. Their mantra has been they, the Dems, did it too.

Sadly for the Repubs Gerry has left the room:

Gerry Studds is dead at age 69

by PageOneQ

Rep. Gerry Studds, a former member of the House of Representatives and an openly gay man, died today in Boston, Massachusetts, PageOneQ has learned.

Christian Kiriakos, a spokesperson for the Boston Medical Center, told the Associated Press that Studds died early this morning. According to a report by CNN, his death was related to complications from a blood clot in his lung.

Studds' name has surfaced recently in the news in connection with the Mark Foley scandal. In 1983, it was learned that he had a sexual relationship, ten years earlier, with a 17-year old male page. Studds was censured by the House and went on to win reelection five more times.

Studds graduated from Yale University with bachelor's and master's degrees in History, taught school and was first elected to the Congress in 1972. He defeated a Republican incumbent in what had been thought a safe GOP district.

Studds and his husband Dean Hara were married in Massachusetts last year. PageOneQ recently contacted Hara in an effort to interview Studds on the current congressional scandal. At the time, Hara explained that Studds was no longer taking calls from the press.

Speaking at the 1993 March On Washington for gay rights, Studds turned to the crowd of almost one million people, pointed back at the Capitol behind him, and urged every gay person inside to come out and be open and honest about who they are. If they stood up and walked out, he told the crowd, the work of the government would stop.

Funeral details have not yet been released.

That said, I guess the axiom that “Two Wrongs Don’t Make it Right” is some how lost on the Repubs. But then the facts belie the fact that the actions of Studds and the Democrats and Foley and the Republicans are even equivalent.

Take a brief walk through the comparison, not that the GOP wants you to:

The Real Difference Between "Foley and Studds" in 9 Statements (Plus 3 About "Ethics" And 2 About Clinton)

by RJ Eskow | Oct 8 2006 - 9:11am | permalink
article tools: email | print | read more RJ Eskow

Robert Schlesinger's a fine writer, but his piece here on Foley and Studds didn't clearly state the difference between the two cases. It left the impression - at least to me - they were somehow equivalent. (As most people know by now, the GOP has been desperately trying to restore its image by bringing up the Studds case -- see Schlesinger's piece for more background.)

The real difference can be expressed in 9 simple statements, based on what we've been told so far about both cases:

1. As far as we know Studds was not forcing his unwelcome attentions on a series of pages, one after the other.

2. No page went to the Democratic leadership asking for protection from Studds, only to be rebuffed and ignored.

3. The Democratic Party did not run on a platform of "righteousness" and anti-homosexuality, while behaving hypocritically in private.

4. The Democratic Speaker of the House did not make statements about the incident that were immediately revealed to be outright lies ... by fellow Democrats.

5. The Democrats did not then begin an orchestrated media campaign to blame the entire problem on ... the Republicans (or the young man, for that matter).

6. Democrats did not take to the airwaves with talking points that were transparent lies.

7. Pro-Democratic writers (there weren't any bloggers then, remember?) didn't violate the privacy of the young man involved and give his name out to the press. They didn't call the young man a "beast" or blame him for Studds' behavior, either. (Have you heard any Republican leaders criticize the bloggers who gave out the young victims' names?)

8. How many times does this need to be said? It's the cover-up, stupid.

9. The Democratic leadership did not protect a predator, conceal his wrongdoing, and allow him to continue his activities in secret.. The Republicans did.

Let me repeat that last point, because it's getting overlooked:

The Democratic leadership did not protect a predator, conceal his wrongdoing, or allow him to continue his activities in secret. The Republicans did.

Should any of these statements prove false, I'll be as ready as anyone to reprimand the Democratic leadership at the time of the Studds incident. Even that, as Schlesinger points out, wouldn't exculpate Hastert or the others - but it would indict the Democrats of that long-gone time. It's moot at this point, however, since no evidence I've seen suggests any of the above statements are wrong.

As for the idea that Studds showed "contempt" by turning his back on the House when the vote took place, the reality was mostly overlooked at the time, although one or two commentators mentioned it. It is tradition and protocol in Congress to turn one's back when being censured. Studds was actually behaving appropriately.

(Once, conservatives understood and respected tradition. Today's so-called "conservatives" are too lazy and ill-informed to bother.)

For those of you who believe I'm "convicting" Foley without a trial, get this: I've read the emails. He acknowledged writing them, and then he resigned. Is he guilty of a crime? That's for a court to say. But is he guilty of vile behavior? Yes. If you don't think so, let that be noted in the court of public opinion.

Some progressives have suggested there's hypocrisy here, too. Another reminder: this isn't about gay sex. It's about unwanted advances. The kids complained, nothing was done, secrets were kept - and Foley kept on harrassing these kids.

Did you catch that word - "harrass"? It's not just child predation: it's sexual harrassment.

And for those of you who believe that we should wait for the "Ethics Committee" to review Hastert's involvement, consider this:

1. The so-called "Ethics Committee" has been jury-rigged by corrupt Republican cronies to excuse virtually any GOP behavior.

2. The Republican Congress already stated explicitly in the Tom DeLay case that they're willing to allow somebody indicted for a felony to continue serving in Congress ... and to serve in a leadership role in the House. Is that who you would look to for justice?

3. Hastert has already lied publicly and been contradicted by fellow Republicans. Those lies alone should constitute grounds for resignation.

Lastly, a word or two about Bill Clinton:

1. The Democratic leadership expressed its outrage over his behavior. They did not knowingly protect him while he was doing it. Their sense of betrayal should have been a model for the Republicans to follow in this case. Their absence of outrage tells us all we need to know about their party's moral depravity.

2. Monica Lewinsky was an adult - and, by all accounts, sought out the attention she received. Mark Foley forced himself on the young people entrusted to the care of the House of Representatives.

Torture, violation of the Constitution, lies to start a war, widespread financial corruption ... but it took these actions, protecting a predator, to capture the zeitgeist. It encapsulates today's GOP in the blinding light of a single moment, like a lightning flash that reveals the stalker who's been standing outside your door.

So, now that Gerry Studds isn’t here any longer to kick around, because as you all know that kicking around Dead Folks is soooo unseemly, who are the GOP Predator Enablers going to equate their most recent scandal with? Why, Bill and Monicagate of course! Because as we all know it is always Clinton’s fault.

So, who exactly has been in charge these last six years anyway and slavishly following Bill's lead?

I think not.

Gerry Studds
R.I.P
1937 - 2006