General

Strickland’s 1999 Vote Problem: A Lefty Responds

Sit back and grab a Dew or a coffee.

Modern Esquire at BSB:

I must admit that I am amused by the conservative movement’s sudden and recent outrage (again) over the re-discovery (for the tenth time) of Congressman Ted Strickland’s “present” vote in 1999 on House Concurrent Resolution 107 “Expressing the Sense of Congress Concerning the sexual relationships between adults and children.” To hear the conservatives phrase it, this piece of congressional legislation earns a spot next to the Civil Rights Acts, Title IX, ADA, and the PATRIOT Act. Frankly, anything that comes out of Congress claiming the Congress has the sense of anything, common or otherwise, is a farce. And so is this legislation.

Amused? You sound more mad than amused, actually it sounds like you’re seething, but I’ll take your word for it. And as you pointed out most congressional resolutions are indeed, a farce, and mean absolutely nothing. Which is one of the reasons that Strickland’s little one minute rant on this was so gosh-dang interesting.

Like so much of what Congress has been “legislating” this very Congress, H. Con. R. 107 in 1999 was all fury, signifying nothing. What, other than create a political attack that Republicans have been using against Strickland for the past seven years, did passage of this resolution achieve? Did it provide any additional counseling to victims of pedophelia? Did it strengthen any criminal penalities for pedophelia or even child pornagraphy? Can anyone truly say with a somber face that by passing this resolution Congress had done something to protect our children?

Ah, but this is one of those times where a resolution actually meant something, for one thing it threw the APA into an actual tizzy. After the resolution was passed studies on adult-child sexual relationships were politically too hot to handle. See this letter as an example. The APA ran scared of the religious right for quite a few years after this. I think that’s a very, very good thing. Does Strickland disagree? Do you? But you can’t say that there was no effect.

Would it matter if I pointed out that while Mark Foley was likely in between sending House pages instant messages “grooming” them to be his next sexual conquest, he bothered to take a long enough break to go down to the House floor and vote in FAVOR of this resolution? Does his vote on this resolution make anyone think any better of Mr. Foley?

Red Herring, It makes Foley a lying hypocritical scumbag, and you won’t catch anybody defending him. But it doesn’t mean that his vote wasn’t the correct one. If a murderer passes a law against murder, does his hypocrisy mean that murder is cool? Of course not.

Which gets me to Congresswoman Deborah Pryce, fourth ranking Republican in Congress, who, just a month ago. told a Columbus magazine that Mark Foley was one of her closest friends in Washington. Deb Pryce, who now, suddenly says that with all her facetime with Foley she had absolutely no forewarning of Foley’s predatory habits of House pages despite the fact that apparently Tom Reynolds knew, his staff knew, the Speaker’s staff knew, John Boehner knew, Congressman Kolbe knew in 2000, the Republican chairman of the Page Board knew, and the past House Clerk all knew for quite some time. Apparently, so many Republicans knew for so long of Foley’s “inappropriate activities” that they have just assumed, without any evidence, that the Democrats by now knew, too, and waited to pounce on it at the opportune political time. Oh, and Congressman Alexander knew, too.

And I’m sure that Foley was indeed a friend of hers. A month ago. No longer. Tom Reynolds knew that he sent some creepy emails. Ditto the rest of the staff. Pryce never even knew that. And you have no evidence to show otherwise, and you’re certainly not presenting any tonight. So you’re accusing Pryce of knowing something without providing any evidence. I think that’s called slander.

However on the Democratic side, the emails have already been linked to CREW, which is a lefty organization. The FBI is following up the trail on both ends. I don’t know what Democrats knew about what or when, but withholding information of a crime is itself a crime. Which is why that page was so ashen faced when he went to talk to the FBI.

If Ted Strickland’s “present” vote makes him “soft” on pedophilia, what’s Deborah Pryce’s relationship and lack of leadership on Mark Foley make her?

Ted Strickland’s vote let’s slip his moderate mask and shows him up as a typical elitist liberal. No wonder you guys like him. I don’t believe he’s a supporter of pedophilia. But give him a choice between valueless social scientists who publish in NAMBLA and the religious right, he chooses the NAMBLA guys.

Deb Pryce is a bad judge of character.

Are we to believe that in all the time Pryce and Foley hung out, she not once heard any rumor of her good friend’s drunken late-night vists to the pages’ dorms?

Yes. She learned of it last Monday evening from Wicker, with everyone else.

She didn’t see once some vaguely young familiar face with the Congressman?

Apparently not.

That in all of those leadership meetings, not once did she hear any discussion about the issue?

Apparently not.

That in all those flights back from Washington, D.C. she and Boehner not once talked about it?

Talk about what? That Foley guy, is he gay or what? You think that’s seriously a topic of discussion? Um, no.

The manufactured blustering and outrage over Strickland’s vote in 1999 would seem more realistic if the bombastic conservatives had enough present mind not to direct it solely to Strickland alone and included one of their own for similar outrage.

It’s not manufactured, it’s real, but my outrage is directed at the authors of the study in 1998, for Strickland it is unbelief that of all things this, this is what he gets righteously angry about. When given a choice between Dobson, Shlesinger,etc. and those pushing Sexuality’s Last Frontier, Strickland chooses to get righteously angry at Dobson! Incredible!

After all, if this legislation truly was a watermark day in history when politicians were forced to either stand up for or against pedophelia, then what do you say about Congresswoman Deborah Pryce, who didn’t even bother to show up to vote at all on H. Con. R. 107. Where’s the conservatives bluster and outrage that one of their own leaders is not only a close personal friend of Congressman Foley, but didn’t even bother to show up to work to take a stand on this vital piece of legislation? And not only Deborah Pryce failed the victims of pedophelia, mind you, countless other Republican leaders at the time didn’t even bother to vote on this resolution. In fact, although several other members who were not present for the vote later placed their votes into the Congressional record, here we are, some seven years since, and we still don’t know where these Republicans stand on this vital issue for Ohioans.

But that’s the thing isn’t it? If Strickland just missed the vote (like he did 165 times or so this year) this wouldn’t even be an issue. It’s a resolution, it was guaranteed to pass, blah, blah, blah. But in a fit of pique and/or elitism Strickland votes present, so we know that he was there, and then delivers this one minute rant.

It sort of reveals a side of Strickland we don’t see very often. That’s the interesting part.

Here’s the list of the Republican Wall of Infamy, remember their shame well:

House Majority Leader Dick Armey, Congressman (and Clinton Impeachment manager) Bob Barr, Sonny Bono, Helen Chenoweth, House Majority Whip Tom DeLay, Congressman (and now disgraced Kentucky Governor) Ernie Fletcher, Paul Gilmor, (Fox News Host) John Kasich, and as I mentioned, Deborah Pryce.

Burn their dishonored names into your brain!

None of them delivered a one minute rant and accused their colleagues of being cowardly idiots. They’re excused.

I look forward to Matt Dole (Lincoln Logs), Tom Blumer (Bizzy Blog), and Matt Hurley’s call that Deborah Pryce immediately resign her leadership position in Congress and not wait until the election for her to do so. The children of American cannot permit a coddler of pedophiles a place of such vital leadership in the people’s House. After all, as Tom Blumer said, “[t]here’s a big difference between serving 600,000 people in Congress and governing an entire state of 11 million people.” Deborah Pryce is seeking to serve 300 million people of the United States as a leader of Congress!

I know they’ll do the right thing. It’s not like their “outrage” over this seven-year old resolution is one of political expediency.

Show me one, just one, shred of evidence that Deb Pryce knew Foley was all about underage boys and covered up evidence. I’ll call for her resignation myself.

But what is really interesting is that the bar for calling someone to resign is mere association with a suspect. Isn’t that exactly what Joe McCarthy did in the fifties? Paint everyone with a broad brush and ruin reputations based on mere association? Is that the standard now? Or do you only use McCarthy tactics when it suits your purposes and denounce them the rest of the time? Apparently so.

I note that your defense of Strickland’s vote here is pretty much this: Stop talking about Strickland! Deb Pryce is worse! I have no evidence but take my word for it! She was friends with Foley! Burn the witch!

Maybe I missed some subtlety in there somewhere, but since you have appointed yourself the mouth of Strickland, ask him if he still stands by his 1999 non-vote and tirade. We’re still waiting on an answer.

© 2006 NixGuy.com.