As always, we'll weigh in with an opinion or two. Maybe three.
- If Wheaton alum Dennis Hastert had information that clearly indicated Foley's inappropriate interest in congressional pages and didn't act on it immediately, then he and his associates haven't learned what it means to be a Republican (first, that you have to have higher standards than Ds, and second, that Ds force you to live up to those higher standards and will clobber you if you stumble). And if that proves to be the case, it will be time for a cleaning out of the Republican leadership in the House.
- If this had happened to a Democrat, he would now be portrayed as a victim. We'd be told that the pages were over the legal age of consent, that the media and the Republicans were distorting what was going on, that the whole tone of discussion was homophobic and would encourage discrimination and hate crimes, that Rs were implying that all homosexuals are pedophiles and all pedophiles are homosexual, that Foley was being "outed," that the Rs are losing on policy so they're trying to make sex an issue again, that Foley and others only cruise for young men via email because the Rs create such a hostile atmosphere for homosexuals. It's worth remembering that Barney Frank (D-Cambridge, MA, including Harvard and MIT) remains a prominent member of the House Democratic Caucus sixteen years after he admitted using his influence as a congressman with the probation officer for one Stephen Gobie, a prostitute with whom Frank had consorted.
- If it is true that left-wing organizations have had information about Foley for months and have been sitting on it to maximize impact on the November elections, it won't look good for either party's commitment to protecting America's young people.
Update: Hastert insists that the really damaging information, the IMs, weren't known to him or others in the Republican leadership. He's demanding an investigation of who knew what when and why they took so long to notify anyone and why the someone was ABC News. So this will now become another kabuki theater about a reporter not revealing sources.
6 comments:
Agreed. But I question whether either party has a commitment to anything other than its own political aspirations, let alone the protection of America's young people. When push comes to shove, "expediency" trumps integrity. (The goal, it seems, is to make expedient decisions look as though they're motivated by integrity.) Let's pray that it becomes expedient to protect our kids.
Politics is a contest between scoundrels. The thoughtful choice is always for the lesser of two evils.
With the disappointing "If this had been a democrat" line, our usually semi-reasonable blog host loses the high ground. This politico is a hypocrite, a pedophile, and in this case a R. There is no validity in assuming that the Ds would be so low as to try and defend this pervert. To play the Barney Frank card from 1989 is a bit much.
If you want a more recent Democrat examples than Rep. Frank, one might cite Mike Arcuri, a district attorney in NY who is running for congress as a Democrat, and who has been billing taxpayers for his calls to a phone sex line (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=17353).
Then there's Rep. Mel Reynolds, who actually molested children while in congress and scored a presidential pardon from another well-known sexual predator.
The point of the party comparison is not that Republican misdeeds are excusable because of the Democrats get away with it, but that the party that at least gives lip service to the notion of morality has to live by it, whereas the other party can always rationalize its misdeeds out of its relativist worldview.
Giving lip service to the notion of morality is no morality at all, although there are plenty of other words for it.
Don't forget my favorite D of them all, Wilbur Mills (great '70s sex scandal for all you young Rs to check out).
Of course the Rs can counter with (ex)Spokane mayor/ hypocrite James West (see any parallel?) and good ole Duke ("I'm more into money than sex") Cunningham.
"jim shoes" is correct re scoundrels, and the lesser evil does not always lean to the right.
4XD's word is hypocrisy, of course.
Actually, both sides give lip service to morality. They just define it differently. For the Ds, morality is about economic justice that is established providing bigger benefits and protections to the underclasses. Other stuff is private, and if you have something that is a problem in that area, it's not really your fault. Foley played that card when he went into rehab for alcohol and revealed that he had been molested by a clergyman.
Still, there is a political difference between Dems and Repubs on precisely because of their different views of morality. If a Dem doesn't pay Social Security for an immigrant housekeeper, she's sunk. If a Repub misbehaves sexually, he's sunk. But it doesn't work the same way when roles are switched. Scoundrels all, but of different kinds.
I think that's SWNID's point, for those who are slow on the uptake.
Post a Comment