Feedback on All is Not Lost
I received this e-mail after posting this response to my brother`s glum assessment of the upcoming elections based on an Evans-Novak Report. The e-mailer was a curteous Democrat named Scoobie Davis, and I decided to post his e-mail with my response here:
"Nope-more like an interception with a 5 yard return; it hurts but isn`t fatal-if the stupid Republicans get their act together (which I`m not so sure they will; Hastert is out talking about Foley immediately after the faux atomic test by the Ill one.)"
You just keep telling yourself this.
"I will LOVE to see the fallout from the Democrats outing gay Republican staffers; it makes them look vicious and petty."
What Democrats are doing this? I've heard a lot of talk on talk radio but, as usual, no proof. It doesn't make sense; even if the Dems were that ruthless, it would make no political sense.
His websites are:
Scoobie Davis Online
The Google Bomb Project
Horowitz Watch
Ann Coulter/slander blog
I responded:
``You just keep telling yourself this.``
I most certainly will. Recent history supports my case. Of course, you Democrats will howl that the Evil Karl Rove stole the election in districts YOU GUYS CONTROL but, heck, why split hairs!
``What Democrats are doing this? I've heard a lot of talk on talk radio but, as usual, no proof. It doesn't make sense; even if the Dems were that ruthless, it would make no political sense.``
These Democrats for starters. The Foley incident was itself an example of outing, wouldn`t you agree? Furthermore, it was clearly timed to influence the election. (You will notice that none of these are from talk radio, and only the third link can be construed as from a conservative source.)
I agree. Personally, I think it a foolish move to make (and a mean one) but there is a logic to it; you damage the campaign machinery of your Republican opponent by taking out key personnel at a critical moment, you rev up the Movon.Ogr crowd, and you anger an already angry Christian Conservative base (who, we were told ad-nauseum, swung the elections in `04) by exposing these closeted gay staffers. That it could backfire and turn the public against the tricksters is something they apparently are willing to risk. I suspect that this kind of thing could seriously backfire on them, because there are too many skeletons in too many closets which both sides could unearth.
Thanks for writing, and making a thoughtful and curteous point! I`d like to post this on my site-along with any response you may have-if you don`t object too strenuously (I`m always scratching for material.)
Best,
Tim
Scoobie was only too happy to have me post this exchange, and it was pleasurable to have a civil disagreement with a liberal. Check out his websites!
Let me offer a final point; the Democrats have pushed heavily on the concept of pedophilia because 1.they couldn`t push sexual harassment because of their defense of the Harasser-in-Chief (Bill Clinton), nor could they use homosexuality as the club since homosexuals are an integral part of their coalition. Pedophilia is sexual attraction to a prepubescent child-not a teenager. (The clinical term for sexual desires for teenagers is Ephebophilia.) So, where could they go with this? They had to make the accusations of pedophilia, or let the matter drop.
There is a critical distinction; pedophiles are rightly viewed as extreme perverts, while ephobophiles maybe are and maybe aren`t. Consider that Patrick Henry`s wife was 16 when he married her, and Daniel Boone`s wife had just turned 17. Andrew Jackson married a divorced woman who was 16 when she married her first husband (who was a wealthy older man.) The old custom was ephobophilia; marry a girl when she is young so she can survive childbearing. The concept of delayed marriage arose with advances in medical science. To make a Federal case out of Foley (literally) over the age of the boys he was interested in-not the fact that they ARE boys, or that he is abusing his position of authority-shows this for the cynical hypocrisy that it is.
"Nope-more like an interception with a 5 yard return; it hurts but isn`t fatal-if the stupid Republicans get their act together (which I`m not so sure they will; Hastert is out talking about Foley immediately after the faux atomic test by the Ill one.)"
You just keep telling yourself this.
"I will LOVE to see the fallout from the Democrats outing gay Republican staffers; it makes them look vicious and petty."
What Democrats are doing this? I've heard a lot of talk on talk radio but, as usual, no proof. It doesn't make sense; even if the Dems were that ruthless, it would make no political sense.
His websites are:
Scoobie Davis Online
The Google Bomb Project
Horowitz Watch
Ann Coulter/slander blog
I responded:
``You just keep telling yourself this.``
I most certainly will. Recent history supports my case. Of course, you Democrats will howl that the Evil Karl Rove stole the election in districts YOU GUYS CONTROL but, heck, why split hairs!
``What Democrats are doing this? I've heard a lot of talk on talk radio but, as usual, no proof. It doesn't make sense; even if the Dems were that ruthless, it would make no political sense.``
These Democrats for starters. The Foley incident was itself an example of outing, wouldn`t you agree? Furthermore, it was clearly timed to influence the election. (You will notice that none of these are from talk radio, and only the third link can be construed as from a conservative source.)
I agree. Personally, I think it a foolish move to make (and a mean one) but there is a logic to it; you damage the campaign machinery of your Republican opponent by taking out key personnel at a critical moment, you rev up the Movon.Ogr crowd, and you anger an already angry Christian Conservative base (who, we were told ad-nauseum, swung the elections in `04) by exposing these closeted gay staffers. That it could backfire and turn the public against the tricksters is something they apparently are willing to risk. I suspect that this kind of thing could seriously backfire on them, because there are too many skeletons in too many closets which both sides could unearth.
Thanks for writing, and making a thoughtful and curteous point! I`d like to post this on my site-along with any response you may have-if you don`t object too strenuously (I`m always scratching for material.)
Best,
Tim
Scoobie was only too happy to have me post this exchange, and it was pleasurable to have a civil disagreement with a liberal. Check out his websites!
Let me offer a final point; the Democrats have pushed heavily on the concept of pedophilia because 1.they couldn`t push sexual harassment because of their defense of the Harasser-in-Chief (Bill Clinton), nor could they use homosexuality as the club since homosexuals are an integral part of their coalition. Pedophilia is sexual attraction to a prepubescent child-not a teenager. (The clinical term for sexual desires for teenagers is Ephebophilia.) So, where could they go with this? They had to make the accusations of pedophilia, or let the matter drop.
There is a critical distinction; pedophiles are rightly viewed as extreme perverts, while ephobophiles maybe are and maybe aren`t. Consider that Patrick Henry`s wife was 16 when he married her, and Daniel Boone`s wife had just turned 17. Andrew Jackson married a divorced woman who was 16 when she married her first husband (who was a wealthy older man.) The old custom was ephobophilia; marry a girl when she is young so she can survive childbearing. The concept of delayed marriage arose with advances in medical science. To make a Federal case out of Foley (literally) over the age of the boys he was interested in-not the fact that they ARE boys, or that he is abusing his position of authority-shows this for the cynical hypocrisy that it is.
posted by Timothy Birdnow | 7:27 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home