Skip to comments.'Foley problem' surfaces for Ohio Democrats
Posted on 10/11/2006 8:29:15 AM PDT by delapaz
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."
(Story continues below)
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
He might want to clarify that Itlaian vacation too.
Or why his wife lives in another state.
Heck he can't even clarify his own residency is it the Condo in Columbus or the office in his district?
According to public polling strickland is ahead by around 12 points.
Well, if it passed 355-0, why wasn't his vote in the nay column?
He and twelve others voted "present"
Blackwell needs to produce a TV ad on that IMMEDIATELY !
Yep, and who were the others?
As Dem Cong Committee Chair, did Rahm put young pages at risk, by holding back information to score political points? To help people like Strickland?
It strains credulity to suggest Foley's activities were not known in small-town Washington where every "secret" is public knowledge and discussed 24/7.
Everybody knows who hangs out in "the club" bars and book stores on Dupont Circle.....that includes Democrat club members. Right Rahm?
The bizarre video episode seen on news segments where Foley is addressing Congressional pages is clearly Foley as predator, visibly "turned on" by youngsters.
It was not the first time Foley "outed" himself in public view. He seemed to have had no problem flaunting it.
If Dem Cong Committee Chair Rahm Emanuel engaged in a cover-up about Foley for political purposes, he needs to be investigated, pronto.
Rahm's emails to Foley would be v-e-r-y interesting.
So Strickland is not just a liberal, he's a fag also?
Please Ohio don't elect this guy. On a more positive note, please elect Blackwell!!!
Lets See Some Talk About Democratic Candidates Non-Vote on Pedophilia Study Vote In Congress
Members of Congress have keen radar for what their constituents will understand and accept. They do not take off their everyman hats when they read a scientific article about child sexual abuse. They also knew that a vote against H. Con. Res. 107 (1999) would be viewed by their colleagues and constituents as a vote for normalizing pedophilia. The odds were overwhelming that the resolution would pass.
On July 12, 1999, the resolution passed 355 to 0 in the House, with 13 members voting present, and it passed by voice vote two weeks later in the Senate. No member of Congress voted against the resolution. The commentary of Representative Brian Baird (D) of Washington (Baird, 2002, this issue), psychologist and APA member, details the price he paid and the reasons for his vote of present.
Although all of the 13 House members who voted present were reelected in 2000, a significant number of them (including Representative Ted Strickland [D] of Ohio, the other APA member in Congress) suffered conservative grassroots and media attacks similar to those described by Representative Baird.
Just to be clear, Strickland has denied being Gay, and he has been married for many years, so evidence of gayness is thin.
Although the italian trip raised some eyebrows, including mine.
Could you give more info on the Italian trip? I haven't heard that before.
Johnson, E. B.
(House of Representatives - July 27, 1999)
[Page: H6431] GPO's PDF
--- (Mr. STRICKLAND asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
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.
I wonder how many of us read the study before we were willing to vote to say that the methodology was flawed. I wonder how many of us were technically competent to make that decision.
I believe that we ought to observe the Ten Commandments. One of those Commandments says, you ought not to bear false witness against your neighbor.
When we say things about an organization or about an individual scientist that are untrue or unsubstantiated, in my judgment, we have violated that Commandment.
We ought to have the decency not to vote to condemn something until we know what it is we are voting to condemn
he never answers the question.........
Too bad the Democrats forgot Christ's words "Do not critisize the speck in your brother's eye when you have not removed the plank from your own". Their ignorance could come back to bite them.
Having checked out that blog, seems to me that the guy is a flamer.
Look, can you imagine some asking Blackwell? "Are you gay?". The notion is preposterous. Blackwell is a man's man!
To even approach the question raises suspicions. Then to not deny it but to talk about his "wife" is laughable.
Pathetic. Truly pathetic.
Ohio, please come to your senses!!!!
Ok - here's my question, based on the following:
On 5/12/1999, it was referred to the House Committee on Education and the Workforce
On 6/4/1999, it was referred to the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth and Families.
On 7/12/1999 at 2:17PM, it was moved to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution.
At 2:25, the chair announced further proceedings would be postponed
At 6:33, it was "considered as unfinished business"
At 6:40, the vote occurred.
1) Was Strickland on either the committee or subcommittee?
2) If not, is it possible that he may not have received a copy of the bill or the study prior to 7/12/1999 to read? If not, he could be right - many would not have a clue what they were really voting on, and it certainly flew through in record time. Lord knows congress votes on things they don't read far too often...
Was two months advance notice engough time for Strikland, a licensed psychologist, to decide if this study should have been denounced?
"Strickland received a doctorate degree in psychology from the University of Kentucky in 1980. Ted is married to Frances Strickland, an educational psychologist and author of a widely-used screening test for kindergarten-age children. Strickland worked as a clinical psychologist at the maximum security prison at Lucasville, Ohio . . . and was a professor of psychology at Shawnee State University (Portsmouth, Ohio)."
So it's fair to say that Strickland voted along side Bawney Fwank on refusing to condemn pedophilia? Wow, what a nasty ad that would make...
2 months enough time? Absolutely. IF he had received/read that journal. I certainly don't read every journal for my profession. I could never possibly keep up. Keep in mind he also was no longer a professor when serving in congress... thus further reducing the odds...
I'm not saying it wasn't possible that he would have known about the article.... but saying that he had previously been a psychology professor and that the study was published in a psychology journal meant that he must have read and known about it while serving in congress is a stretch....
That's incredible. Someone has something on this guy...
Stickland was a supporter of Clinton's executive order in early 1993 which would have forced the U. S. military to accept open gays and lesbians.
This would have created all kinds of Foley situations, involving young service men and service women.
As a result of huge public opposition to Clinton's move, a Congressional mandate was enacted by moderates and conservatives of both political parties that blocked it.
Clinton and his far-left supporters then came forth with an amendment to override the Congressional mandate. That amendment (Roll Call Vote #460 in 1993) went down to defeat 169-264.
Voting "yes" on this amendment would have allowed open gays and lesbians in the U. S. military (and meant the demise of that military). Strickland voted "yes", as did Sherrod Brown the Dem's current senatorial candidate in Ohio
Strickland had over two months notice as to what the issue was. As shown by below timeline, Strikland's only defense is that he does not read his mail then!
4/16/99 all members of Congress receive letter on study from the APA.
4/21/99 Representative Joe Pitts (R) of Pennsylvania sent a Dear Colleague letter to all members of the House of Representatives condemning the Rind et al. study, with a copy of the Dr. Laura 4/20/99 editorial from The Washington Times.
5/10/99 The Family Research Council sent letters denouncing the Rind et al. article to all members of the House.
The second of these items is the only one I would place any emphasis on. The amount of mail flooding into a congressman's office makes it impossible for the congressman to actually read everything. However, letters from other congressmen most likely receive more attention than from your average Joe.
Now, if his staffers (who actually read most of the mail) didn't notify him of something like this, that isn't good.
However, I do prefer people don't vote when they don't know what they're voting on. The amount of spin is staggering, and if you only know the spin on something, and don't know the facts, voting on it really isn't that honorable... (note that this study really was sleazy)
You're certainly entitled to believe that - I won't stand in your way. :)
I just know that having taught at the university level myself, there is absolutely no way I kept up on all but more than a VERY small % of the articles that came out in my field. I simply didn't have time. :)
I well understand time constraints on reading publications in reference to your profession - but there would have been a lot of "talk around the cooler" on this particular study.
Thank you for allowing me my opinion and have a good day. :o)