Oct 5, 2006
Nothing like a miscreant Republican to make you want to vomit....
Sometimes I read or see or hear things that I really wish I hadn't. The IM transcripts of Rep. Foley and a teenage boy's sexual conversations definitely fall into that category. I would've been fine knowing the story without reading those details.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
At least liberals are finally
exhibiting a moral compass
about something. I am sure
that they'd be equally outraged
if Rep. Mark Foley were a
Democrat.
The object lesson of Foley's inappropriate e-mails to male pages is that
when a Republican congressman is caught in a sex scandal, he immediately
resigns and crawls off into a hole in abject embarrassment. Democrats get
snippy.
Foley didn't claim he was the victim of a "witch-hunt." He didn't whine that
he was a put-upon "gay American." He didn't stay in Congress and haughtily
rebuke his critics. He didn't run for re-election. He certainly didn't claim
he was "saving the Constitution." (Although his recent discovery that he has
a drinking problem has a certain Democratic ring to it.)
In 1983, Democratic congressman Gerry Studds was found to have sexually
propositioned House pages and actually buggered a 17-year-old male page whom
he took on a trip to Portugal. The 46-year-old Studds indignantly attacked
those who criticized him for what he called a "mutually voluntary, private
relationship between adults."
When the House censured Studds for his sex romp with a male page, Studds —
not one to be shy about presenting his backside to a large group of men —
defiantly turned his back on the House during the vote. He ran for
re-election and was happily returned to office five more times by liberal
Democratic voters in his Martha's Vineyard district. (They really liked his
campaign slogan: "It's the outfit, stupid.")
Washington Post columnist Colman McCarthy referred to Studds' affair with a
teenage page as "a brief consenting homosexual relationship" and denounced
Studds' detractors for engaging in a "witch-hunt" against gays: "New England
witch trials belong to the past, or so it is thought. This summer on Cape
Cod, the reputation of Rep. Gerry Studds was burned at the stake by a large
number of his constituents determined to torch the congressman for his
private life."
Meanwhile, Foley is hiding in a hole someplace.
No one demanded to know why the Democratic speaker of the House, Thomas
"Tip" O'Neill, took one full decade to figure out that Studds was
propositioning male pages.
But now, the same Democrats who are incensed that Bush's National Security
Agency was listening in on al-Qaida phone calls are incensed that
Republicans were not reading a gay congressman's instant messages.
Let's run this past the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals: The suspect sent an
inappropriately friendly e-mail to a teenager — oh also, we think he's gay.
Can we spy on his instant messages? On a scale of 1 to 10, what are the odds
that any court in the nation would have said: YOU BET! Put a tail on that
guy — and a credit check, too!
When Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee found unprotected e-mails
from the Democrats about their plan to oppose Miguel Estrada's judicial
nomination because he was Hispanic, Democrats erupted in rage that their
e-mails were being read. The Republican staffer responsible was forced to
resign.
But Democrats are on their high horses because Republicans in the House did
not immediately wiretap Foley's phones when they found out he was engaging
in e-mail chitchat with a former page about what the kid wanted for his
birthday.
The Democrats say the Republicans should have done all the things Democrats
won't let us do to al-Qaida — solely because Foley was rumored to be gay.
Maybe we could get Democrats to support the NSA wiretapping program if we
tell them the terrorists are gay.
On Fox News' "Hannity and Colmes" Monday night, Democrat Bob Beckel said a
gay man should be kept away from male pages the same way Willie Sutton
should have been kept away from banks. "If Willie Sutton is around some
place where a bank is robbed," Beckel said, "then you're probably going to
say, 'Willie, stay away from the robbery.'"
Hmmmm, let's search the memory bank. In July 2000, the New York Times
"ethicist" Randy Cohen advised a reader that pulling her son out of the Cub
Scouts because they exclude gay scoutmasters was "the ethical thing to do."
The "ethicist" explained: "Just as one is honor bound to quit an
organization that excludes African-Americans, so you should withdraw from
scouting as long as it rejects homosexuals."
We need to get a rulebook from the Democrats:
§ Boy Scouts: As gay as you want to be.
§ Priests: No gays!
§ Democratic politicians: Proud gay Americans.
§ Republican politicians: Presumed guilty.
§ White House press corps: No gays, unless they hate Bush.
§ Active-duty U.S. military: As gay as possible.
§ Men who date Liza Minelli: Do I have to draw you a picture, Miss
Thing?
This is the very definition of political opportunism. If Republicans had
decided to spy on Foley for sending overly friendly e-mails to pages,
Democrats would have been screaming about a Republican witch-hunt against
gays. But if they don't, they're enabling a sexual predator.
Talk to us Monday. Either we'll be furious that Republicans violated the
man's civil rights, or we'll be furious that they didn't
The thing that you don't seem to get, Dr. Whoami, is that Congressman Foley's sexually-explicit messages had nothing to do with the Democrats whatsoever, and that any attempt to overlook this matter in favor of finger-pointing in the Democrats' direction is nothing but political horse crap.
Read this, Dr. Whoeveryouare: The Democrats didn't make Foley send disgusting correspondences to all of those pages. Stop looking at them and look within.
Post a Comment