Gay Patriot Header Image

Dem State Senator — “Foley’ed”, But Re-Elected

Posted by Bruce Carroll at 10:25 pm - November 15, 2006.
Filed under: FoleyGate,Post 9-11 America

Now when this happens to a Republican Congressman, he does the right thing and resigns.  And if he hadn’t he would have been kicked out by the GOP Leadership for his actions. 

But not state Senator Dan Sutton, Democrat of South Dakota, who has a similar “page problem.”  Nope, he decides to run for re-election…..and wins. (h/t – VtheK)

South Dakota state senator who’s under investigation has resigned his current term, but plans to show up for the new session that starts in January.

Democratic state Senator Dan Sutton of Flandreau has been accused of acting improperly with a high-school student who served as a page during last winter’s legislative session. One of Sutton’s lawyers has said Sutton did nothing wrong.

In a letter dated today to Governor Rounds, Sutton resigned for the rest of this term but did not step down from the 2007 session.

Sutton was re-elected last week with 57 percent of the vote.

I guess that’s because it is okay to be a child predator in the Democratic Party (*cough* Gerry Studds *cough*).

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Share

15 Comments

  1. So what?

    Let’s get over it and move on. The United States faces some serious problems and challenges over the next two years and it’s time to focus all our energies and passions on them.

    It’s a total waste of time to pounce on some bad Democrat(s) to offset our bad Republican(s). And the libs shouldn’t be wasting time dragging up GOP embarrassments in hopes of obscuring embarrassments on the left.

    The WOT requires bipartisanship and cooperation — and we all could use a little civility.

    Comment by Ashley Hunter — November 15, 2006 @ 10:59 pm - November 15, 2006

  2. Well…. it doesn’t sound like it’s “a dead girl or a live boy” situation. If it’s a girl over 16, the ‘good old boys’ will just have a good chuckle; slap him on the wrist; and invite him to serve as a Committee-chair. The Democrats just seem bound-and-determined to demonstrate that they haven’t learned a damned thing from the 2006 elections…other than who their “friends*” are.

    * meaning “lobbyists and the unions”.

    Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — November 15, 2006 @ 11:11 pm - November 15, 2006

  3. What is it with Congressmen and their charges?

    Apparently the only things worth bedding in DC are younger and firmer than Vera’s last face-lift – circa 1986.

    Vera has hats older than these sex-tots!

    And to think, at their age I was babysitting for movie money to see the latest Fred and Ginger confection. Swooning over the paperboy. Now teenagers are engaged in pillow talk with elected lawmakers. Boy, talk about a progressive agenda!

    High School? Egads! He or she probably has homework due and some congressman is bringing new meaning to the word ‘cramming’.

    No doubt the dems will explain that at 17 this mature teenager is wise beyond their years: Old enough to make their own decisions, have sex, get an abortions, protest the war and talk back to grown ups. What my mother would call ‘reform school material’. Unless said Congressman is Republican – then this child is too young to: join the military, buy beer, smoke cigarettes, drive at night, rent a car, take an aspirin, listen to rap music or see an R rated movie. The poor child probably has a curfew and is afraid of the dark, too.

    Make Vera a drink: This is going to be a very interesting 2 years…

    Comment by Vera Charles — November 15, 2006 @ 11:54 pm - November 15, 2006

  4. “Now when this happens to a Republican Congressman, he does the right thing and resigns.” How many years later? And with how many people in the know?

    Comment by sean — November 15, 2006 @ 11:57 pm - November 15, 2006

  5. What is it with Congressmen and their charges?

    Apparently the only things worth bedding in DC are younger and firmer than Vera’s last face-lift – circa 1986.

    Vera has hats older than these sex-tots!

    And to think, at their age I was babysitting for movie money to see the latest Fred and Ginger confection. Swooning over the paperboy. Now teenagers are engaged in pillow talk with elected lawmakers. Boy, talk about a progressive agenda.

    High School? Egads! He or she probably has homework due and some congressman is bringing new meaning to the word ‘cramming’.

    No doubt the dems will explain that at 17 this mature teenager is wise beyond their years. Old enough to make their own decisions: have sex, get an abortions, protest the war and talk back to grown ups. What my mother would call ‘reform school material’. Unless said Congressman is Republican – then this child is too young to: join the military, buy beer, smoke cigarettes, drive at night, rent a car, take an aspirin, listen to rap music or see an R rated movie. The poor child probably has a curfew and is afraid of the dark, too.

    Get Vera a drink: This is going to be a very interesting 2 years…

    Comment by Vera Charles — November 15, 2006 @ 11:58 pm - November 15, 2006

  6. test

    Comment by Vera Charles — November 15, 2006 @ 11:59 pm - November 15, 2006

  7. Bruce darling,

    Is Vera drunk or are her comments disappearing faster than single, handsome, rich men at one of Vera’s parties?

    Is it the bloody machine or it’s operator?

    Comment by Vera Charles — November 16, 2006 @ 12:05 am - November 16, 2006

  8. Don’t speak ill of the dead.

    And, I don’t think we should be holding Foley up as a model for anything, even if the model is that you should resign your office when you get caught having sexual discussions with teenagers.

    Comment by PatriotPal — November 16, 2006 @ 12:53 am - November 16, 2006

  9. So exactly when are the dems supposed to get ethics?

    I am curious to see the “talking point” defense of this one, can’t exactly use that “it happened in 1973” thing as an excuse.

    The GOP may have gotten into some ethical problems over the last several years, but at least their bad apples resign or lose elections, the dems keep sending them back.

    Comment by just me — November 16, 2006 @ 7:29 am - November 16, 2006

  10. The dif between this and foley is he denies the allegations. At this time, the charge is equivalent of me claiming Bruce had relations with my niece.
    Perhaps its real perhaps its not.
    So I would suggest that you save your moral condemnations until a little more is known.

    Comment by keogh — November 16, 2006 @ 10:03 am - November 16, 2006

  11. I firmly believe that if the Foley incident had not got to the press he would still have been serving in DC, preaching of the evils of child porn all the time indulging in less than legal activities with what ever poor boy comes his way, and all with the blessing of his leader.

    Foley did not resign voluntarily , rather he was forced to fall on his own sword for the sake of the party. As for this Dem fellow well we will have to wait and see what comes out in the wash. Do not forget both these fellows were on the ballot in thier areas, Foley lost and Sutton was elected by a large margin by his fellow SD’s, who obviously either like the guy a lot or think it is a crock.

    Even if it is male or female i feel that america views underage sex with distaste, come to think of it america seems to fear sex of all hues straight, gay or undecided. I personally do not care one jot if my senator likes men, other women or self gratification as long as he or she does a good job.

    When i lived in the uk a local council member was elected a man, ended the term as a woman as was re-elected, it did not matter to the people what he or she was becasue she did a great job.
    It is about time america stopped worrying about these things learnt that how we are governed is more important than who we are governed by. I mean come on our party threw the gay marriage crap into the ballot in many states to try and motivate the neo-cons to vote, and despite this we still lost in many key races. We need to stop cultivating the extremes and concentrate on the more moderate cons who moved away this year, we have 2 years to fix this and i feel not by just attacking the dems but showing a more populist stance on issues. such as smaller transparent government, less jobs for friends of the president and no more scandals.

    Comment by andrew — November 16, 2006 @ 1:20 pm - November 16, 2006

  12. I wouldn’t have seen this story were it not for your posting it, guess we know which party the media was trying to get elected. Good for them, there’s nothing like media endorsement.

    Comment by Scooter — November 16, 2006 @ 6:23 pm - November 16, 2006

  13. Perhaps if the Republican party didn’t stand as the party of morals for the masses (ie, do as I say, not as I do) , then perhaps the voting public and the media would be more willing to take an even eye on these situations. Foley was a crusader for exploited children; Haggard aligned himself with the conservative self-righteous, rallied against gay marriage, etc, etc. Say what you want about Democrats, but at least Democrats don’t spend so much time on trying portray/enforce empty moral responsibility.

    Comment by Kevin — November 17, 2006 @ 6:34 am - November 17, 2006

  14. The only way the public can take an “even eye” on these sort of situations is if they don’t see anything wrong with them.

    Foley preyed on teenagers.

    Haggard bought drugs and apparently hired a prostitute for the purposes of cheating on his wife.

    These things are wrong. Both Haggard and Foley spoke out against them as wrong and acted to eliminate them in areas over which they had power; while this made their actions ironic, it does not in any way nullify them.

    But for Democrats like you, Kevin, these actions are not necessarily wrong.

    Gerry Studds did worse than Foley, but because his gay leftist district didn’t see any problem with him having sex with teenage boys over which he had nominal authority, the Democrats didn’t see anything wrong with him.

    Barney Frank hired prostitutes, even housing one and using his Congressional powers to make said prostitute’s life easier, but because he was politically reliable and appealed to the gay leftists in his district, the Democrats didn’t see anything wrong with him either.

    This moral relativism that permeates the Democratic Party is why Nancy Pelosi, herself a campaign finance fraud practitioner, can speak out against “corruption” one day, then push and make threats in order to have one of the most ethically-challenged individuals in the House as her second-in-command. Having been a Democrat all her life, she knows that the Democratic base, like yourself, is so anti-“moral responsibility” that she can basically do what she wants, regardless of consistency; it’s YOUR problem to use relativity to explain why it’s right, not hers, and you will, be it by claiming that “Republicans are worse”, or making other strange accusations about concentration camps.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 17, 2006 @ 1:37 pm - November 17, 2006

  15. […] No, if you think about it, it’s not Rudy but the people around him who will likely be super-snooped on and used for political fodder. His kids, his wife, his friends – especially his gay friends. The Democrats like nothing better than to play the homophobic “isn’t this appalling and shocking” card whenever a gay person gets near, is attached to, or is family of, a Republican or Conservative) or is himself/herself gay. They keep thinking we care and it matters. While most of the folks on the right whom I’ve met really don’t much care, beyond the gay marriage issue. And many, like me, don’t mind the idea of civil unions – if two consenting adults want to form a legal partnership, what do I care – they just don’t want the churches to be forced to comply with “marriage” rules. […]

    Pingback by The Anchoress » Ford, Jordan, Pelosi, Giuliani the beat goes on — January 2, 2007 @ 11:43 am - January 2, 2007

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.