'Foley problem' surfaces for Ohio Democrats

[Geezah]

Scandal puts spotlight on gubernatorial candidate's vote on pedophilia

In the wake of the Mark Foley scandal, questions are circulating below the radar screen in Ohio about the past record of Democratic Rep. Ted Strickland on pedophilia.

Strickland is the Democratic gubernatorial candidate in Ohio running against Republican Secretary of State Ken Blackwell.

The issue surfaced Dec. 15, 2005, when the left-leaning Athens News reported on an anonymous letter-writing campaign to Democratic voters citing Strickland's vote as "present" and not in support of the 1999 House Concurrent Resolution 107 that condemned an American Psychological Association study supporting "nonnegative sexual interactions between adults and adolescents."

The APA study claimed scientific evidence established that sex between adults and underage minors might be positive for children.

HCR 107 passed with a strong bipartisan coalition of 355 congressmen voting "yea" and only 13 congressmen, including Strickland, voting "present[."

Strickland's refusal to vote "yea" has been interpreted as implicit support for pedophilia, as he was given a chance to join an overwhelming congressional bipartisan majority voting to condemn the APA study.

In the Democratic primary, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Brian Flannery openly challenged Strickland on his HCR 107 vote. Flannery still has posted on his gubernatorial website Strickland's July 27, 1999, speech on the House floor explaining his refusal to condemn the APA pedophilia study.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, it troubles me that sometimes in this Chamber we stand and say things that we ought not to say. We criticize people that we have no right to criticize.
We recently voted to condemn a scientific study and an organization, an organization that has done as much as any organization in this country to fight child abuse.

WND Managing Editor David Kupelian in his best-selling book "The Marketing of Evil" has noted a tendency since sex researcher Alfred C. Kinsey published his sexual behavior books in the late 1940s and early 1950s to use flawed social science research to endorse sexual practices traditionally considered deviant.

Bloggers in Ohio argue that the behavior of the Democratic Party in Washington expressing outrage over Foley's e-mails demands "a full vetting" of the seven-year old controversy over Strickland's refusal to take a strong stand against the APA study arguing that pedophilia can be beneficial to children.

The argument is that Democrats are pursuing a double standard, condemning Republicans on sexual misconduct issues while giving Democratic candidates a pass.

The HRC 107 controversy resurfacing in the last month of the Ohio gubernatorial campaign also has brought back another controversy over sexual misconduct that first was launched by Flannery, Strickland's Democratic challenger.

On March 17, during the primary campaign, Lynn Hulsey reported in the Dayton Daily News that Flannery had accused Strickland of hiring from 1997 to 1999 a male congressional and campaign staffer who had been convicted of exposing himself to children. As Hulsey wrote:

According to Athens police, the man's case stems from 1994, when he was arrested for public indecency after several children reported he'd exposed himself. Police records show he was found guilty, although the exact charge is unclear.

Flannery also accused Strickland of taking the man with him to Italy after his 1998 congressional campaign. Again, Hulsey wrote:

Strickland said campaign workers planned to treat themselves to the trip if Strickland won, but as it turned out only Strickland and the man were able to go.

Hulsey reported Strickland had learned of the sexual misconduct charge against his employee late in the 1998 campaign through an anonymous letter, but he discounted the letter since it was sent anonymously. Hulsey quoted Strickland as saying "perhaps" he should have pursued the matter more aggressively, but at the time he took no action. The man left Strickland's office of his own accord in 1999, after the reported trip to Italy with Strickland.

After the Foley scandal, these resurfacing charges against Strickland are creating a firestorm among Ohio's political blogs.

Among Strickland's endorsers is the choice of Ohio's openly pro-homosexuality PAC, the Equality Ohio Campaign Fund, or EOCF. In endorsing Strickland, EOCF emphasized his service as a minister, a psychologist and a professor, commenting:

Representative Strickland has long been an ally of and advocate for LGBT (Lesbian-Gay-Bi-sexual-Transvestite) people. He maintained a 100% rating with the Human Rights Campaign's Congressional Scorecard while in Congress. He voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA).

The EOCF noted Ted Strickland is married to Frances Strickland who lives in Simpsonville, Ky. The EOCF closed its endorsement by commenting that Frances "is an educational psychologist and author of a widely-used screening test for kindergarten-age children."

Link (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52391)

Just lovely, the next Governor of Ohio could be a closet sex case:(

[nullterm]

Who were the other 12 "Present"?

[11 Bravo]

Kind of funny as well due to the seeming bubble to burst on demoslob Mark Warner due to a "bimbo eruption" that is rumored to have canned his run at a chance to be a demoslobik presidetnial candidate. Let's see Foley in flordia talked dirty to young boys - shameless fag. Bill O'reilly talked dirty to a female employee , shame on him.
But the Demoslobs just can't seem to keep their tallywhackers in their pants !. Kennedy(s) , clinton ,warner just to name the most prolific.

[budgie]

Question: Is Strickland a card carrying member of NAMBLA? Does he have a past record of abuse or suspected abuse or lewd conuct with minors??

Was there anything else in the bill that Strickland might have found objectionable?

We all know (or should know by now) that the devil is in the details. Legal bills have various clauses and catches and loopholes that lawmakers argue over before they are enacted. Oppostion to one form of the bill, because it needs to be either strengthened, watered down or otherwise altered depending on what lawmakeers think their constituents want, does not constitute opposition to the entire bill or the spirit of the bill in question.

This is how Kerry ran afould of the $87 defense bill: he voted for it in one form and because a second draft was not the same, he then voted against it. Rove siezed on this and charged him with A) flip-flopping and B) voting against material support for the troops in Iraq. They painted it as if he had been against the entire spirit of the bill which he said was not the case.

Back to the here and now, this looks like a similar attempt to hide the details from people. If the news media doesn't pick up this story and run with it it's probably not a liberal conspiracy, it's probably just that there is no story.

Now if they find this guy Strickland is actually a pervert, then we have a story.

[XShipRider]

We all know (or should know by now) that the devil is in the details. Legal bills have various clauses and catches and loopholes that lawmakers argue over before they are enacted.

The add-ons are what get me. A bill about highway construction will have
an add-on about some multi-million dollar museum tacked on, or something
similar.

Congress needs to make a rule - every expenditure bill must only pertain
to the letter and intent of the bill in question. This would alleviate the
ridiculous posturing of hard to pass expenditure bills, bills most are opposed
to, being tacked on to other popular bills.

Either that or give the President line item veto.

[Geezah]

Question: Is Strickland a card carrying member of NAMBLA? Does he have a past record of abuse or suspected abuse or lewd conuct with minors??

Was there anything else in the bill that Strickland might have found objectionable?

We all know (or should know by now) that the devil is in the details. Legal bills have various clauses and catches and loopholes that lawmakers argue over before they are enacted. Oppostion to one form of the bill, because it needs to be either strengthened, watered down or otherwise altered depending on what lawmakeers think their constituents want, does not constitute opposition to the entire bill or the spirit of the bill in question.

This is how Kerry ran afould of the $87 defense bill: he voted for it in one form and because a second draft was not the same, he then voted against it. Rove siezed on this and charged him with A) flip-flopping and B) voting against material support for the troops in Iraq. They painted it as if he had been against the entire spirit of the bill which he said was not the case.

Back to the here and now, this looks like a similar attempt to hide the details from people. If the news media doesn't pick up this story and run with it it's probably not a liberal conspiracy, it's probably just that there is no story.

Now if they find this guy Strickland is actually a pervert, then we have a story.


HCR 107 passed with a strong bipartisan coalition of 355 congressmen voting "yea" and only 13 congressmen, including Strickland, voting "present."

Well if the devils is in the details then 355 other congressmen missed it, including Flannery a fellow Democrat who call Strickland on his vote.
To be honest though, there is no excuse for what Strictland did here.

[budgie]

Well if th edevilsd is int he details then 355 other congressmen missed, including Flannery a fellow Democrat who call Strickland on his vote.
To be honest though, there is no excuse for what Strictland did here.

Read my post again. There could be something in the bill that Strickland found objectionable enough to vote against but the others did not. Doesnt mean they `missed` anything. Since bills are packaged with all sorts of flotsam the objectionable part may have had nothing to do with pedophilia.

All this seems to be is a big case of blowing smoke to distract from the Foley case. Simply voting against the bill doesn`t make Strickland a pedophile. This is classic Rove here - taint someone`s reputation on the flimsiets of evidence or better yet, none at all.

[Geezah]

With the Foley scandal still swirling as a backdrop in Washington, leading Ohio moral conservatives are beginning to call for Rep. Ted Strickland, D-Ohio, to withdraw from the 2006 Ohio gubernatorial race, in light of disclosures made concerning his 1998 campaign manager who in 1994 pleaded guilt to criminal misdemeanors involving sexual improprieties with minors.

As reported yesterday, Strickland employed as his 1998 campaign manager an individual who in 1994 pleaded guilty to exposing himself and masturbating in front of pre-teen girls at an Athens, Ohio, school. Even after being informed of the sexual misconduct offenses, Strickland allegedly took his campaign manager on a private trip to Italy to celebrate his 1998 re-election, leaving Mrs. Strickland at home in Kentucky.

Phil Burress, president of Citizens for Community Values in Cincinnati is calling for Strickland to withdraw from the Ohio gubernatorial race.

"Fair is fair," Burress told this writer. "If Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid can call for Mark Foley and Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert to resign, then Ted Strickland should step down until all the questions are answered honestly and completely."

Burress went on to detail his questions:

When exactly did Strickland's 1998 campaign manager stop committing these sexual abuses? Why did Strickland not conduct due diligence before hiring this guy? Who expunged the court records and why? Did Strickland play a role in expunging the records and, if so, why?

What bothered Burress was the apparent double standard in the way the Democrats were handling the allegations against Strickland:

We need all the facts because this is hypocrisy in the first degree for the Democrats to call on Republicans to step down when issues of sexual impropriety with minors are raised and not apply the same standard to themselves.

John C. Willke, M.D., president of the Life Issues Institute, Inc. in Cincinnati joined in the call for Strickland to resign from the Ohio gubernatorial contest.

"This sounds more serious than the Foley problem," Willke said, "because it indicates a willingness on Strickland's part to associate with a person of these moral deficiencies, raising a profound question about Strickland's moral character."

Willke believes that Strickland should withdraw from the race immediately to answer questions about the matter "so the Ohio voters can once and for all know the truth." Willke noted that Strickland had misrepresented the circumstances until now.

"Strickland has been lying," Willke told this writer. "This is not some campaign lower-down, as Strickland made out when his challenger, Brian Flannery, brought out these charges during the Democratic primary. We know now that this was Strickland's campaign manager, a person of responsibility and trust in the campaign. How could Strickland allow a criminally convicted sex offender to occupy this role and not do something about it?"

Mount Vernon, Ohio, attorney Scott Pullins, whose Pullins Report blog was one of the first to cover sexual questions raised in the campaign regarding Strickland, was outspoken in calling for Strickland to withdraw.

"The question is what did Strickland know and when did he know it?" Pullins asked, repeating the famous question from the Watergate investigation that ultimately dogged President Nixon out of office. "Strickland is lying to the people of Ohio, and he should withdraw from this race."

Pullins wondered whether Strickland's experience as a former prison psychologist may have colored his vision:

I'm concerned that Strickland is a far-out, liberal former prison doctor who believes these folks can be rehabilitated. Would Strickland surround himself with convicted felons and those that would harm our children? Even worse, he might pardon some of these despicable individuals [as governor].

The attorney suggested that "Strickland might make Ohio a haven for sexual predators and other offenders who would prey on our citizens. Under Strickland, would we end up with a state where people would be afraid to leave their homes?"

Pullins doubted that the full story regarding Strickland's former campaign manager has come out yet.

What if there is more to this story. Has Strickland hired or associated with other people on his campaign or congressional staff who have a past history of sexual misconduct with minors? Has Strickland hidden any personal problems of this nature that he doesn't want the public to know about?

The Strickland campaign did not return a call asking for comment for this column.

Link (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52492)

Shocking...................

[Geezah]

H CON RES 107 2/3 YEA-AND-NAY 12-Jul-1999 6:40 PM

QUESTION: Suspend the rules and agree, as amended

BILL TITLE: Expressing the Sense of Congress Concerning the sexual relationships between adults and children

YEAS 355

Ackerman
Aderholt
Andrews
Archer
Bachus
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Barton
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Clayton
Clement
Coble
Collins
Condit
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crowley
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
DeLauro
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Fowler
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (IN)
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inslee
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Kelly
Kennedy
Kildee
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuykendall
LaFalce
LaHood
Largent
Larson
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, George
Minge
Moakley
Moore
Moran (KS)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Ose
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Salmon
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Schakowsky
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Spence
Stabenow
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Tierney
Toomey
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

ANSWERED “PRESENT” 13

Abercrombie
Allen
Baird
Conyers
Delahunt
Filner
Frank (MA)
Hastings (FL)
Johnson, E. B.
Mink
Moran (VA)
Stark
Strickland

NOT VOTING 66

Armey
Baker
Baldwin
Barr
Bartlett
Bateman
Berkley
Bilbray
Bishop
Boehlert
Bono
Brady (TX)
Brown (CA)
Chenoweth
Clay
Clyburn
Coburn
Combest
Danner
DeGette
DeLay
Doolittle
Edwards
Engel
Fletcher
Gekas
Gephardt
Gillmor
Hulshof
Isakson
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kasich
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kolbe
Lampson
Lantos
Markey
McDermott
McIntosh
Millender-McDonald
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Northup
Payne
Pomeroy
Pryce (OH)
Rogers
Royce
Rush
Scott
Serrano
Shows
Simpson
Spratt
Taylor (NC)
Thurman
Towns
Waters
Watt (NC)
Weldon (PA)
Weygand
Wise


Link (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1999/roll278.xml)

.................................

[budgie]

Again what do the above numbers show if we don`t know the exact and entire content of the bill?

At worst so far the only evidence against Stickland suggests that he (probably rather hopelessly) believes in reforming sexual felons. This scandal only seems to exists in dirt^digging conservative websites (and no doubt on O`Reilly, Hannerty or Limbaugh shows by now).

Foley on he other hand is clearly a pervert

[Geezah]

Again what do the above numbers show if we don`t know the exact and entire content of the bill?

I've been digging to find the orginal bill but it's almost liek the thing has disapeared. But I'll keep in digging as I do believe that Strickland is in the wrong here.
But surely if this bill is something that the likes of McKinney,Murtha or Pelosi would sign off on there has to be somethign right about it, even a Dem like yourself must see that?


At worst so far the only evidence against Stickland suggests that he (probably rather hopelessly) believes in reforming sexual felons. This scandal only seems to exists in dirt^digging conservative websites (and no doubt on O`Reilly, Hannerty or Limbaugh shows by now).

I did come across a site yesterday that suggested that Strickland would change the law so that convicted felons could run for office, which would fall in line with everything else that has been said about him.


Foley on he other hand is clearly a pervert

And no-one has disputed that, but while we at it, maybe we should take a close look at Studds?