When I flipped the dial to MSNBC this morning, someone (didn't catch the ID) was already spinning the difference here as being that the House GOP leadership in the Foley case covered up the information about his escapades and did nothing about it, while the Democratic leadership 23 years ago did not.

In other words, it's now OK for a congressman to have gay sex with an underage teenage page and have the party's leadership say and do nothing about it after the fact, as long as they didn't have any advance knowledge of it. So forcing closted gays to resign for their discresions: Good; forcing openly gay congressmen to quit because of their dalliances: Bad. Gotcha. Sounds like a real winning strategy with the voters.

John, of course it's difficult for you to understand the nuances here. Only card carrying liberals have the ability to hold two opposite and opposing opinions at the same time.

I did not have sex with that underage Congressional page, what's his name - oh, wait. I guess I did!

~Gary Studdly

"One can't believe impossible things."

I darsay you haven't had much practice. When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.

Wow--talk about timing. I'm assuming that DU has already decided that Rove-backed assassins did the deed to remind the voters about him.

From the AP story:

Former U.S. Rep. Gerry Studds, the first openly gay person elected to Congress, died early Saturday at Boston Medical Center, several days after he collapsed while walking his dog, his husband said.

I guess AP is pro-gay marriage (not that it is a big secret).

"He gave people. . .the courage to do whatever they wanted to do."

No condemnation could be more complete. His entire life was a direct, active scandal, dragging others down by his example as well as his advocacy
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13506d.htm

pchuck:

"walking the dog"

Is that what they call it these days?