Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

'Foley problem' surfaces for Ohio Democrats
WorldNetDaily ^ | 10/11/2006 | WorldNetDaily

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 ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Ohio
KEYWORDS: blackwell; foley; governor; ohio; pedophilia; strickland
In the wake of the Foley scandal, I would think that Strickland would welcome an attempt to clarify his remarks in 1999.
1 posted on 10/11/2006 8:29:18 AM PDT by delapaz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: delapaz

He might want to clarify that Itlaian vacation too.


2 posted on 10/11/2006 8:31:40 AM PDT by NeoCaveman (BlackwellvStrickland.blogspot.com - The Ohio gov race has tightened.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: delapaz
Could have been procedural or something else attached to it that he couldn't support. No politician steps that far out unless the represent P-Town, Key West or SF.
3 posted on 10/11/2006 8:33:29 AM PDT by misterrob (Bill Clinton, The Wizard of "Is")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: misterrob
Nope, it was a stand-alone resolution that passed 355-0. Read more background at bizzyblog.com
4 posted on 10/11/2006 8:35:08 AM PDT by delapaz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NeoCaveman

Or why his wife lives in another state.


5 posted on 10/11/2006 8:35:12 AM PDT by garv
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: garv

Heck he can't even clarify his own residency is it the Condo in Columbus or the office in his district?


6 posted on 10/11/2006 8:37:09 AM PDT by NeoCaveman (living in interesting times)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: NeoCaveman
Wherever it is I have a feeling it's impeccably decorated.
7 posted on 10/11/2006 8:44:17 AM PDT by garv
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: delapaz
Is this Strickland guy actually ahead in the polls? I would love to see Blackwell win because it would mean all the Diebold machines would work "correctly" for the foreseeable future.
8 posted on 10/11/2006 8:46:10 AM PDT by MichiganConservative (Government IS the problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MichiganConservative

According to public polling strickland is ahead by around 12 points.


9 posted on 10/11/2006 8:49:23 AM PDT by delapaz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: delapaz

Well, if it passed 355-0, why wasn't his vote in the nay column?


10 posted on 10/11/2006 8:49:35 AM PDT by musikman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: musikman

He and twelve others voted "present"


11 posted on 10/11/2006 8:52:22 AM PDT by NeoCaveman (living in interesting times)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: musikman

Blackwell needs to produce a TV ad on that IMMEDIATELY !


12 posted on 10/11/2006 8:52:55 AM PDT by musikman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: NeoCaveman

Yep, and who were the others?


13 posted on 10/11/2006 8:53:27 AM PDT by musikman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: All
Blackwell should also determine what Cong Rahm Emanuel knew about Foley, and when did he know it? Rahm is Dem Cong Committee Chair.

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.

14 posted on 10/11/2006 9:03:56 AM PDT by Liz (The US Constitution is intended to protect the people from the government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: delapaz

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!!!


15 posted on 10/11/2006 9:07:46 AM PDT by ConservativeDude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: misterrob

Lets See Some Talk About Democratic Candidates Non-Vote on Pedophilia Study Vote In Congress

http://bama.ua.edu/~sprentic/607%20Garrison%20&%20Kobor-2002.htm

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.


16 posted on 10/11/2006 9:18:11 AM PDT by excludethis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeDude

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.


17 posted on 10/11/2006 9:19:54 AM PDT by delapaz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: delapaz

Could you give more info on the Italian trip? I haven't heard that before.


18 posted on 10/11/2006 9:22:24 AM PDT by bonfire
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: musikman

Voting Present:

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


19 posted on 10/11/2006 9:26:12 AM PDT by NeoCaveman (living in interesting times)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: bonfire

(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


20 posted on 10/11/2006 9:27:34 AM PDT by excludethis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: NeoCaveman

http://rightangleblog.com/?q=node/559

he never answers the question.........


21 posted on 10/11/2006 9:28:33 AM PDT by bonfire
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: delapaz
It would be poetic justice if the Foley scandal ended up costing the rats the Ohio governor's mansion.
22 posted on 10/11/2006 9:41:00 AM PDT by CzarNicky (Gentlemen, Dethklok has summoned a troll.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: delapaz

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.


23 posted on 10/11/2006 9:47:39 AM PDT by bobjam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bonfire; delapaz

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!!!!


24 posted on 10/11/2006 10:02:12 AM PDT by ConservativeDude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: delapaz


25 posted on 10/11/2006 10:31:06 AM PDT by TexKat (Just because you did not see it or read it, that does not mean it did or did not happen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: excludethis

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...


26 posted on 10/11/2006 10:56:40 AM PDT by eraser2005
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: eraser2005
Who with a straight face could claim two months notice was not sufficient to educate yourself on the a bill denouncing this study?

In this study, the authors conclusion were that child sexual abuse “does not cause intense harm on a pervasive basis regardless of gender in the college population” (Rind et al., 1998, p. 46). The authors even reported that some children (including preadolescents) experienced positive reactions in “willing” sexual encounters with adults.

These conclusions and the research methodology were vehemently denounced by many in the media, politics, and grassroots organizations as “junk science” and a serious assault on societal values. Demands were made for corrective action on the part of the APA, the publisher of the prestigious scholarly journal in which the article appeared.

http://bama.ua.edu/~sprentic/607%20Garrison%20&%20Kobor-2002.htm
27 posted on 10/11/2006 11:35:59 AM PDT by excludethis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: eraser2005
Even more unbelievable is that Strickland was a professor of psychology. The study at issue was published in in Psychological Bulletin which is a publication of the American Psychological Association.

Was two months advance notice engough time for Strikland, a licensed psychologist, to decide if this study should have been denounced?

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Strickland

"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)."

28 posted on 10/11/2006 11:48:52 AM PDT by excludethis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: NeoCaveman

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...


29 posted on 10/11/2006 11:53:13 AM PDT by Antoninus (Ruin a Democrat's day...help re-elect Rick Santorum.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: excludethis

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....


30 posted on 10/11/2006 12:32:08 PM PDT by eraser2005
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: excludethis

That's incredible. Someone has something on this guy...


31 posted on 10/11/2006 1:46:20 PM PDT by The Old Hoosier (Right makes might.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: delapaz

bump


32 posted on 10/11/2006 1:47:52 PM PDT by VOA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: delapaz

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


33 posted on 10/11/2006 2:13:53 PM PDT by mtntop3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eraser2005

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.

http://bama.ua.edu/~sprentic/607%20Garrison%20&%20Kobor-2002.htm


34 posted on 10/11/2006 2:31:35 PM PDT by excludethis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: excludethis

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)


35 posted on 10/12/2006 5:29:31 AM PDT by eraser2005
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: eraser2005
Respectfully disagree on his prior knowledge, his politics aside. He wasn't just a shrink on the corner but a university prof of psychology - his wife an educational psychologist - this was in his area of real expertise. If even I knew of this study prior to it coming before Congress.....He knew.
36 posted on 10/12/2006 6:25:05 AM PDT by daybreakcoming
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: daybreakcoming

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. :)


37 posted on 10/12/2006 7:09:19 AM PDT by eraser2005
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: eraser2005
Voting with the majority on this particular bill would not have endeared him with American Psychological Association - a group he probably plans to be active in again. And his wife is most likely a current active member. So that could be one plausible reason for the "present" and knowing that it was going to pass anyway. However, he is supposed to be representing his constituents - not his professional alliances. So he should go down either way.

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)

38 posted on 10/12/2006 7:26:27 AM PDT by daybreakcoming
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: eraser2005
Do you have the honesty to call it what it was, a special interest vote of "present"? He is simply a liberal college professor that is to much of a coward to piss off his special interest supporters. Not to mention it might offend some of his previous clients in Ohio State penal institutes!
39 posted on 10/12/2006 1:41:28 PM PDT by excludethis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson