This morning Charlie inflicted John Gard (R-Sun Prairie) on his listeners. Gard was angry that Steve Kagen, currently leading him in polls in a district that should be Republican, was going after him and Republicans over the Mark Foley affair.
But it wasn't the fact that Kagen's beating him that angers him. It's the hypocrisy. What hypocrisy? Why, Kagen was with US Rep. Steny Hoyer, who voted against censure for congressman Gerry Studds who had sex with a page more than two decades ago, back when Asia ruled the airwaves.
Realizing some of this listeners can read, Charlie posted this on his blog:
But back in 1983 Hoyer voted against censuring Rep. Gerry Studds (D-MA) in 1983, who was found to have engaged in sexual relations with a male teenage congressional page.
On July 14, 1983, the House Ethics Committee recommended to the full House a reprimand for Rep. Gerry Studds (D-MA), who was found to have engaged in sexual relations with a male teenage congressional page.
Among those Democrats who voted against censure were: Howard Berman (D-CA), Henry Waxman (D-CA), Steny Hoyer (D-MD), John Conyers (D-MI) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY).
But, bizarrely, Charlie and John left out some details that undermined their case that Democrats are the party of perverts and pervert enablers.
One, Democrats were divided over how hard to slap Studds' wrist. There was broad support for reprimand ( a lesser punishment) but some disagreement over the harsher move of censure. The vote against reprimand and for censure was 338 to 87. But when the die was cast and the time came to censure Studds, the vote came down 420 to 3. Now, I don't know whether Hoyer was one of those three holdouts. I doubt it because he would have been called "one of only three sickos" or somesuch. More likely he was one of those who voted for reprimand and not censure -- which is different then merely voting against censure. If I'm wrong I'm happy to be corrected. (Note, the Brawler is not endorsing the decision. Just pointing out facts.)
And note Charlie lists five names voting against censure when the final vote was 420 to 3. He clearly doesn't know what he's talking about and he doesn't give a shit.
Moreover, Charlie and Johnny "Per Diem" Gard didn't break out the voting tally for censure against Dan Crane, the Illinois Republican who had sex with a 17-year-old female page on multiple occasions at his suburban DC residence.
From Billmon:
The vote to upgrade Studds' reprimand to censure was 338 yeahs to 87 nays, and while I don't have the partisan breakdown, I wouldn't be surprised if 79 of those nay votes were Dems -- excessive partisanship being such a bipartisan disease in Washington. But, the vote to upgrade Crane's reprimand to a censure passed by only 289 yeahs to 136 nays. I'm guessing not all of those 136 votes were cast by the heathen Democrats.
In both cases, the final vote on censure was overwhelmingly lopsided -- 421 to 3 in Crane's case, and 420 to 3 in Studd's.
Huh. So much for moral clarity.
Meanwhile. as far as Gard goes. During the interview, Johnny said something along the lines of he's the guy to clean up Washington and would go after anyone who was covering up Foley's behavior (again, that's a paraphrase). Thing is, as this release from the Democratic Party of Wisconsin (cribbing Folkbum) notes, people potentially in need of a good scrubbing have poured money into Gard's campaign. So, you know, his independence might be in question. So if he wants to prove his independence he might want to shed those dollars.
Jessica says this call for Gard to lose the money "disgusting" and "below the belt." The Brawler notes that Gard previously has embraced being the party establishment's guy. WHen you do that, the establishment dirt wipes off one you.
But if Gard gives up the money he could prove his independence. He'd be walking the walk. That's what a farm kid from Lena would do, after all.
Postscript: No, I didn't see Folkbum wrote a similar post...
Comments