October 5, 2006, - 3:06 pm

Mark Foley Diarrhea: Notes on Dan Crane & Gerry Studds; The Studds “Monument”

By Debbie Schlussel
I, for one, am sick of the all-Mark-Foley-all-Hastert-should-resign all-the-time, diarrheic media slurry. And now, it’s being reported that the whole graphic IM message series between the now-former Congressman and the page was a set-up prank by the page, Jordan Edmund. Haha funny.
And some other notes on the matter:
On Sunday, I wrote about my internships with three U.S. Congressmen, among them Donald E. Buz Lukens, who resigned in shame after an alleged affair with a teen-age prostitute (pimped out by her own mother!).


Not in Mark Foley’s Future

I also mentioned that I worked for former Congressman Phillip M. Crane. A number of people e-mailed and commented about whether he was the Congressman who had an affair with a page. No, he was not. That was Dan Crane, his brother–an Illinois dentist. I was well aware of Dan Crane’s involvement in the page scandal, because at age 17, when I began working for Phil Crane, his office manager told all of the interns about it and reminded us that this was the brother, NOT our boss. Phil Crane was a principled, brilliant, honorable, and decent guy in all the years I’ve known him. And I remain good friends with him, his wife Arlene, and his children, to date. He can’t be held responsible for the actions of his brother.
Dan Crane, who had an affair with a female page, cried on the floor of the House of Representatives. He publicly apologized and begged for the forgiveness of the people of his district. All of this was televised. He lost his Congressional seat.
Gerry Studds, who had an affair with a male page at around the same time, did none of those things. And he was re-elected over and over. He got to retire with honor, years later.
And, incredibly, he now has a federal site named after him. No, it’s not the Washington Monument. It’s the Gerry E. Studds Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary. Also notable, a Republican Congressman Don Young of Alaska, is the one who asked that the Sanctuary be named after this liberal Congressional Page paramour. (The info on the Sanctuary’s site is completely incorrect–it says that Senator Andrew Young of Alaska did so. No such Senator from Alaska, ever.) Young later took campaign contributions from Studds. Perhaps something strange was going on there.
Frankly, I think a federal bathhouse would be a better monument to Studds, if there must be any government site bearing his name. A friend of mine suggests Hot Springs National Park in Arkansas, which we both think would be more appropriate in a lot of ways.
So, a national sanctuary, of all places, named after Gerry Studds. But Foley resigned for the same thing. And, yet, it’s still not enough.
What will be? Perhaps a complete apology by the former page, Jordan Edmund, for playing a prank that has now turned America upside down when we’re supposed to be fighting a war on terror.
No-one is saying Foley should not have resigned. He should have. And it’s good he’s gone. But the non-stop Natalee Holloway style coverage is absurd.
How many heads will be enough for the lumpen liberaltariat–and mediatariat?

Related Posts with Thumbnails
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

15 Responses

Debbie, your last sentence is right on the money.
I continue to shake my head in wonder at how passionate politicians and journalists (and some regular folks) have been about this scandal.
Imagine that, a sex scandal involving congress. Did Foley, or did he not write those e-mails and messages?
Quite frankly, I donít give a damn.
I worry a little more about the war weíre fighting, than congressmen with hyper-active libidos.

Rocky on October 5, 2006 at 4:05 pm

so the difference with clinton is what….
except that clinton pursued an internet and foley pursued a page
and clinton pursued girls and foley boys, so are the dems the ones homophobic really?

sultan_knish on October 5, 2006 at 4:05 pm

Itís ludicrous and makes no sense, but the story is going to suddenly become ìDemocrat Prank,î even though the ex-page in question is a conservative Republican who, uh, worked for Foley? DEVELOPING HARD, REFRESH CONSTANTLY FOR POSSIBLE COHERENCE.

thirdgoat on October 5, 2006 at 4:12 pm

sultan, you dope . . .

AynaydaPizaqvick on October 5, 2006 at 4:13 pm

Sex crimes regardless of the persons party affilliation are a serious matter. And what exactly is this “prank” business? Please elaborate.

Descent on October 5, 2006 at 4:23 pm

The public should demand that the Congressional Page program come to an immediate end. The American people obviously cannot trust America’s lawmakers around their kids. Considering the high percentage of pederasts, perverts, crooks and scum in Congress, now and past, why would anyone want to subject children to close contact with them?
Rather than place children near the grasp of these perverts and lowlifes (even though they carry the title Congressman or Congresswoman) why not just hire full-time adult messengers or sub-contract it out to a firm like Pitney Bowes?
The page program is anachronistic, out-dated, and unsafe for children.

DDB on October 5, 2006 at 4:27 pm

Also, the difference about Studd, and Foley, is that Studd, while it is a GREAT breach of ethics, broke no law, as 17, at the time of the incident, was considered legal age of consent.
Foley, it is alleged, engadged in his accused activities while the victim was only 16, which is, I believe illegal..if any physical contact took place. As far as I know though, mere lude conversation via the internet, is not a crime, and I personally believe that Foley should have stayed and tried to fight for his seat a little bit more.
Though maybe he figured an outed gay republican has a 0% chance for getting re-elected.

Descent on October 5, 2006 at 4:31 pm

” . . . And what exactly is this “prank” business? Please elaborate.”
Go to Drudge. He has developed information that the page initiated the IM with the Congressman as a prank so he could show his buddies what a homo Foley is. He’s apparently claiming someone got the copies of the IM transcript without his knowledge and gave them to Dem operatives.

AynaydaPizaqvick on October 5, 2006 at 4:35 pm

Aynayda, I read the article, and unfortunately, prank or not, Foley still said those things of his own will. The fact they encouraged it does not excuse the fact that HE HIMSELF did indeed, type those responses.
The prank, if it did happen as such, also isn’t far from the tacticts that law enforcement and Dateline have both used to capture pedophiles online. That is, they intentionally provoke the person on the other end, or play along, in order to get them to incriminate themselves.
Also, this is on the Drudge article:”The prank scenario only applies to the Edmund IM sessions and does not necessarily apply to any other exchanges between the former congressman and others.”
So, regardless of the fact that there may have been some bad decisions made by Edmund(which still do not excuse Foley’s own words), there are still other pages have come forward.

Descent on October 5, 2006 at 4:54 pm

The TIMING of this Foley info being trotted out now after being held for so long is what stinks the most here. HELLO DESCENT–NO ONE IS DEFENDING FOLEY–SO WHAT IS YOUR POINT, EH?
We simply want us to apply the standard to all parties. Those having done far more than electronic perversion are not scrutinized in the drive by media–they get a free pass because they are buds together. WHY?
I’ll tell you something–I will be reminding many people of this double standard. In the end–the dirty trick in the TIMING (emphasis for you Descent-OK?) of this release will probably hurt those who did it that way more than it will other “republicans” who had zero to do with this.
The call for Hastert’s scalp is the ranting of a looney mob.
Good grief man–you who call for that–why are your heroes the Ted Kennedy’s and the Barney Frank’s and Studds-Reynolds-Clinton (what at a man!)–all whose crimes are well known given Patron status as guardians of your Democrat party–the party of take power at all costs, dirty smear politics, champions of the illegal among us et al.

BB on October 5, 2006 at 8:06 pm

The timing is very suspicious, I’ll give you that. And I never said any of the afformentioned were my heroes. Party lines aside, no matter who it was that was caught doing this, be it you, me, or a congressman, it’s absolutely sick, and not just because it was a member of the same sex, that’s fine, but because of their age. Pedophelia period is wrong, and I think that’s something both sides can agree on.

Descent on October 5, 2006 at 11:00 pm

I’ve just got a problem assigning the attribute of innocence to the pages whose side of the IM conversations I’ve seen thus far. For God’s sake, these boys were probably laying more pipe than the DC Plumbers Union. I’m not saying what Foley did is defendable. Far from it. The guy is a skunk scrotum. It’s just the way this entire thing is going down, stinks. If the Democrats took advantage of the fact that Foley liked homo phone sex, to structure a scenario for the purpose of influencing the vote next month, you’re talking about something akin to violating Star Fleet’s Prime Directive. The Dems have repeatedly demonstrated that, because they can’t win in the arena of ideas, they must resort to subversive means to acquire power.

AynaydaPizaqvick on October 5, 2006 at 11:39 pm

When You Have No Ideas or Plans , you resort to tactics as this “October Surprise.”
Wouldn’t it be great to just once, hear how candidates actually stand on issues instead of the usual, “he’s dirtier than I am?”

Lew Waters on October 6, 2006 at 12:53 am

The difference between Republicans and the dimwits is when a pervert surfaces the Republicans get rid of the trash…like Foley he is gone…Contrast that with the Studds/Frank of the dims… what do the dimwits do the celebrate the perversion and call it diversity.
In the perverted thought process that it takes to be a democrat, somehow, someway they will twist this around and blame: Bush, Haliburton and of course Dick Cheney.
The good news is, the people the dimwits are always trying to fool, won’t be, this is going to backfire on them and soil, even more, their already perverted party… Then they will play the voting fraud card and claim the Republicans fixed the election.
There is an old saying in Chicago, just because you are a dead, doesn’t mean you can’t vote democrat, How do you think John Kennedy got elected.

mark on October 6, 2006 at 8:26 am

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field