codeorama Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 All day today, they have been playing the tape of Schrock on the radio... He's calling in to a dating service asking for a well hung guy in good shape.....LOL... Schrock abruptly quits race The congressman's announcement came after allegations of trying to date men were put on a Web site. Rep. Edward L. Schrock Political party: Republican Age: 63 Occupation: Public affairs officer; stockbroker Education: Undergraduate degree from Alderson-Broaddus College in Phillipi, W. Va., in 1964; master's degree in public relations from American University in Washington, D.C.., in 1975 Political experience: Won his first term in the Virginia Senate in 1995. Schrock won a seat to the U.S. House of Representatives in 2000 and again in 2002, and was sworn in for his second term on Jan. 7, 2003. Represents the cities of Virginia Beach, parts of Norfolk and Hampton, and the counties of Accomack and Northampton on Virginia's Eastern Shore Career highlights: Serves on the House Armed Services, Budget, Small Business and Government Reform committees Family: Married with one son Sources: www.washingtonpost.com and www.schrock.house.gov STAFF AND WIRE REPORTS August 31, 2004 U.S. Rep. Edward L. Schrock abruptly announced Monday that he will not seek a third term in Congress, citing unspecified allegations "that have called into question my ability" to serve. In a brief news release issued by his office, Schrock said he has "come to the realization that these allegations will not allow my campaign to focus on the real issues facing our nation and region." "Therefore, as of today," the statement continued, "I am stepping aside and will no longer be the Republican nominee for Congress." Schrock's surprise announcement followed allegations made against him on a Web site that focuses on outing secretly gay public officials and public figures. Schrock's news release said he would not comment further on his decision, nor did he comment specifically on any allegations he is facing. The decision to retire leaves the Republicans scrambling to field another candidate to oppose Democrat David B. Ashe in the conservative district that includes portions of Hampton and Norfolk and all of Virginia Beach. "Wow. I had not heard that. That's really something," said Ashe, a lawyer, in a telephone interview. Shawn M. Smith, communications director for the state Republican Party, said the 2nd Congressional District committee would meet today to select a candidate to replace Schrock on the November ballot. Schrock, 63, a retired career Navy officer and Vietnam veteran, was elected to the seat in a 2000 Republican sweep of Virginia in an area that is home to the world's largest Navy base. In January 2001, Schrock was elected president of the Republican House freshman class and landed a seat on the House Armed Services Committee, a plum for any member of Congress from eastern Virginia. On Aug. 19, the Web site BlogActive.com accused Schrock, a conservative Republican from Virginia Beach, of using a telephone dating service to try to arrange liaisons with gay men. Michael Rogers, who runs the Web site, said he posted the allegations because of what he described as Schrock's anti-gay voting record. Schrock voted for the federal Marriage Protection Act and is a co-sponsor of the Federal Marriage Amendment, both of which target same-sex marriages. Schrock has received a 100 percent rating from the National Right to Life Committee for his anti-abortion votes and a 92 percent rating from the Christian Coalition. Delegates at the Republican National Convention in New York were surprised by the news. "I am totally, totally shocked and disappointed," said delegate Juanita Bailey of Newport News. "Whatever it is, he should've stayed in and fought it. He's a good Republican." As proof of his allegations, Rogers played over the telephone a tape recording of a singles-type ad from the dating service. The Daily Press has not reported on the tape because, while the voice on the recording sounds like Schrock, the recording could not be authenticated. No other mainstream news outlets reported on the allegations until Schrock announced his retirement. Schrock has refused to discuss the allegations. Tom Gordy, Schrock's chief of staff, said last week that the Web site's claims are untrue. Gordy said that he had heard about the tape recording for some time but that no one had been able to produce a copy. Rogers would not allow a Daily Press reporter to copy the tape, which apparently is three or four years old. "No one doubts that it's him," Rogers said. "It's pretty clear that he's trying to hide from people what the truth is. He had no way out of this." Rogers posted the recording on his Web site Monday after Schrock announced his withdrawal from the race. With Schrock out, attention turns to Republican state legislators as possible replacements for him on the Nov. 2 ballot. The 2nd District Republican Committee will choose a nominee at a meeting today, just three days ahead of a deadline for qualifying a nominee, said state GOP spokesman Shawn M. Smith. "I've got a lot of thought I have to give to this tonight and tomorrow," said state Sen. Kenneth W. Stolle, R-Virginia Beach, who has expressed interest in the post. Del. Thelma Drake, R-Norfolk, is also expected to seek the nomination. Kate Obenshain Griffin, the state party chairwoman, vowed to keep the seat from turning Democratic. "The Republican Party thanks Congressman Schrock for his service to the Commonwealth of Virginia," she said in a prepared statement. "It is now important for Virginia Republicans to unite behind our nominee and work hard to ensure the Second Congressional District continues to be represented by a Republican." Dave Hendrickson, Peter Dujardin and David Lerman contributed to this report. http://www.dailypress.com/news/dp-70403sy0aug31,0,7315399.story?coll=dp-headlines-topnews Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canyonero! Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 Audio can be found here: http://www.blogactive.com/image_files/0804/audio23snt.mp3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinInsite Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 I'm sorry but i laughed when i heard that sound bite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Sick Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 Another Republican hypocrite... yawn. He can go hang out with Bill Bennett. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 Is that what he meant by a "Masters in Public Relations?" :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phat Hog Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 Perhaps we can make all the homosexuals in congress leave…. assuming, of course, that is the real issue here. Comments? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted September 1, 2004 Share Posted September 1, 2004 LOL. The issue here is hypocracy, pure and simple. And karma. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted September 1, 2004 Share Posted September 1, 2004 I suppose there could be a basis for another discussion, here: Supposing: There's a political candidate. He's voted the way you've wanted him to, faithfully, for a decade. Then you discover that he doesn't actually believe the things you do. Do you vote for him? To be more blunt, to you care how a representitive feels, or only how he votes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ancalagon the Black Posted September 1, 2004 Share Posted September 1, 2004 I'll add on to Larry's questions with one of a more speculative nature: Is Schrock's position that he is against gay marriage or that he is against being gay? If the latter, then he is guilty of hypocrisy. If only the former, then to demonstrate hypocrisy we would have to know whether he himself tried to get married. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted September 1, 2004 Author Share Posted September 1, 2004 Originally posted by Ancalagon the Black Is Schrock's position that he is against gay marriage or that he is against being gay? If the latter, then he is guilty of hypocrisy. If only the former, then to demonstrate hypocrisy we would have to know whether he himself tried to get married. He's against gay marriage,but all for pole smoking....:laugh: :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted September 1, 2004 Share Posted September 1, 2004 Originally posted by codeorama He's against gay marriage,but all for pole smoking....:laugh: :laugh: Maybe he's in favor of gay sex, but he's opposed to gay alimony. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo-toni Posted September 1, 2004 Share Posted September 1, 2004 Unless he's spoken out against gay practices, I don't think voting against same-sex marriages makes him necessarily anti-gay. Sure, the PC police would like you to believe anyone who is opposed to same-sex marriages is a psychotic homophobe, but I don't quite buy that, even though I have no issue with gay marriage myself. Unless he publicly denounced homosexuality, I'm not so sure this is as hypocritical as some would claim. This is not nearly as serious as, for example, our NJ governor making his boy-toy head of homeland security when he doesn't even have a security clearance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted September 1, 2004 Author Share Posted September 1, 2004 Where are all the conservative comments about the slipping morals in this country?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
docdru Posted September 1, 2004 Share Posted September 1, 2004 In some ways this is very sad. I don't know much about him, but in my opinion sexual preference and one's personal life has nothing to do with one's career or public life. Being straight is not a prerequisite for public service, nor is disclosing your sexual preference to the world openly and honestly necessary in order to do your job as a politician. It's sad that in America being gay is a scandal. I suppose you could argue that it's not so much his being gay as it is his trying to hide it, or the fact that he attempted to cheat on his wife with a gay man. I still feel as though that has nothing to do with his political abilities. A politician should be measured by his actions where it counts, on the floor of Congress, on the political stage, etc. His private life is just that--private. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted September 1, 2004 Author Share Posted September 1, 2004 Originally posted by docdru In some ways this is very sad. I don't know much about him, but in my opinion sexual preference and one's personal life has nothing to do with one's career or public life. Being straight is not a prerequisite for public service, nor is disclosing your sexual preference to the world openly and honestly necessary in order to do your job as a politician. It's sad that in America being gay is a scandal. I suppose you could argue that it's not so much his being gay as it is his trying to hide it, or the fact that he attempted to cheat on his wife with a gay man. I still feel as though that has nothing to do with his political abilities. A politician should be measured by his actions where it counts, on the floor of Congress, on the political stage, etc. His private life is just that--private. I agree 100%. Just apply those same principals to politicians of other parties as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky21 Posted September 1, 2004 Share Posted September 1, 2004 Right or wrong, a person's private life has always been and will always be a determinant in people's decision to vote for him/her. I think when you say "get naked, play, see what happens" in an ultra conservative state like Virginia you're not long for this political world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
docdru Posted September 1, 2004 Share Posted September 1, 2004 Originally posted by Rocky21 Right or wrong, a person's private life has always been and will always be a determinant in people's decision to vote for him/her. I think when you say "get naked, play, see what happens" in an ultra conservative state like Virginia you're not long for this political world. Maybe it will always be, but that certainly has not always been the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky21 Posted September 1, 2004 Share Posted September 1, 2004 Originally posted by docdru Maybe it will always be, but that certainly has not always been the case. What do you mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted September 1, 2004 Share Posted September 1, 2004 Originally posted by Riggotoni This is not nearly as serious as, for example, our NJ governor making his boy-toy head of homeland security when he doesn't even have a security clearance. Actually, you've brought up another one of the things that gets me riled up, here. Our country has (or at least, had) a policy stating that gays were prohibited from having a security clearance. Like gay marriage used to be, there wasn't a law as such spelling out the policy, it was just one of things that "everybody knows". 60 Minutes did a thing on it several years ago. The guy they based the story around worked, I think, at Los Alamos, and had been there for several years. He was openly gay. His boss died, and the new boss fired him for being gay. 60 Minutes asked why he was fired for being gay, and the lab said it was because he'd lost his clearance. They asked why he'd lost his clearance, and the said it was because he was gay. They asked why being gay prohibited a clearance, and they said (paraphrase) "not that there's anything wrong with being gay, but" gays are easily blackmailed. He pointed out that, in order to be blackmailed, his being gay had to be a secret, whereas he's open about being gay. So, the lab said he'd lost his clearance for lieing on his application for a clearance, because there's a blank on there where they ask if you're gay. He pointed out that, on his forms, he'd said "yes" to that question, every year he's been there. (Aparantly, nobody looked at the answer to the question.) Although, it's possible that that policy has changed. (And, it's possible that it's changed back, too). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ancalagon the Black Posted September 1, 2004 Share Posted September 1, 2004 I believe that there are still laws on the books in most states that prohibit you from testifying in court if you are atheist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaFunky1 Posted September 2, 2004 Share Posted September 2, 2004 I think if he did what he is accused of he is wrong. Cheating on your spouse is wrong on every level. I don't care if you are an atheist, agnostic, or religious, if you promise to be faithful, then do it. If he was single then this might be a different story. From reading the article I don't think he is "anti-gay" I think he is pro-marriage. I think his actions show him not to be as pro-marriage as what he was portraying, again assuming he is guilty. If this is true then his actions are reprehensible and I'm glad he won't be re-elected. Peace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.