Mark Foley and Gerry Studds — it’s apples and oranges

The Wall Street Journal trotted out the old “moral equivalence” argument in a Monday editorial mentioning former Massachusetts Congressman Studds.

Sorry, doesn’t fly.

Per Wikipedia, here’s the basics on Gerry Studds’ case.

First, Studds admitted to a relationship with a 17-year-old male page, albeit while claiming it was a private matter, despite violating age-of-consent laws.

But, the relationship itself happened a decade ago, so, as far as possible criminal prosecution, or House sanctions beyond censure, the statute of limitations had expired.

Second, Gerry Studds in particular, or the Democratic party in general, had not run election after election as defenders of “moral/family values.”

Third, Studds openly admitted his sexual orientation as a result of the incident; Wiki claims it was common knowledge in his district. Foley, part of an officially anti-gay political party, has refused to admit his sexual orientation. And despite some PR flackery, it seems pretty clear that this has NOT been common knowledge in Foley’s district.

And, contrary to Hotline’sChuck Todd, it is NOT the media who drive a Republican/Democrat dichotomy on differing standards and differing political fallout. The GOP invites this on themselves.

However — SURPRISE — Kos whitewashes ALL of Studds’ history in his Kosopedia entry on Studds, not mentioning the age-of-consent issue.

And again, that’s why this blog doesn’t accept the Conventional Wisdom of self-appointed conservative or liberal talking heads.