A conservative news and views blog.

Location: St. Louis, Missouri, United States

Wednesday, October 04, 2006

The Hypo-Crats and Mark Foley

America`s faux most boring man (he`s actually one of America`s most interesting) Ben Stein set off a grenade with these comments in the American Spectator the other day. His comments elicited an hysterical reaction from supposed readers, who accused Mr. Stein of every sort of malfeasance and despicable prejudice known to Man. Was Ben Stein wrong? Is there a rush to judgment on what has occurred with that pervert Mark Foley, or do the Republicans deserve condemnation for this?

First off, it should be pointed out that no actual sexual activity has been alleged here-only that Foley wrote some rather overly-friendly e-mails and some much more explicit instant messages. Can the same be said for Gerry Studds, the former Democratic Congressman who plied a 16 year old with liquor and then pressured him into sexual congress? Now, I know; that is a terrible argument and absolutely no justification. Still, the Democrats rallied behind Studds (and I`m sure a man like Studds LIKES his fellows to be behind him), refusing to expel him and giving him several standing ovations for, well, being a gay pedophile. Washington D.C. has an age of consent at 16, so Studds was barely able to avoid criminal charges. But what of violations of the civil law? Studds clearly committed an act of sexual harassment.

Stein compares and contrasts Foley with Bill Clinton, who DID commit a crime or two; Clinton had consensual sex with that woman, Miss Lewinski while she was in his employ as an intern, and he lied about it under oath while being sued for sexually harassing another woman. Clinton has further been credibly accused of RAPING a woman, but none of this seems to bother the morally indignant who want Foley`s-and the rest of the Republicans-head on a stick. Not for what he did, mind you, but for what HE SAID.

But they have gotten Foley`s head on a stick already; he has resigned his safe seat in Congress (probably giving it to the Democrats) and checked himself into alcohol rehab. Hastert, who had been unaware of the instant messages, was furious because someone had this information and had failed to give it to him to act on. Some of these instant messages go back three years, so it should be patently obvious that this whole thing is a monumental dirty trick, an October surprise intended to put back the Republicans into a corner. How can they defend themselves on charges they are weak on pedophilia and allow THE CHILDREN to be mistreated? As one of the letter writers to TAS pointed out, Lewinski was in her early twenties, not in her teens.

Of course, the 16 year old boy was, technically, of legal age to actually engage in sex with Mr. Foley-he just never did (nor has any page come forward claiming any inappropriate contact with Mr. Foley other than some foul comments.) Does this justify what happened? Absolutely not, and Foley should be prosecuted under his own law, if applicable. They should consider changing the age of consent to 18 in D.C., too, and the Republicans should lead the charge on that.

Does anyone remember Barney Frank`s gay boyfriend running a prostitution ring out of his office? The Democratic righteous indignation seemed rather muted about that particular issue.

Another point to ponder; Jeanine Piero in New York is being racked over the coals for having suggested taping her philandering ex-husband to get the goods on him. My question is, who had these e-mails, and why have they surfaced now, when it is too late to withdraw Foley`s name from the ballot in Florida? What is worse-suggesting taping somebody`s conversation to use against them or actually doing it?

``Audacity, audacity, audacity!``

The point is, Hastert and the Republicans acted on the information they had, and failed to act only on the information they didn`t have. The attempt to force Hastert out is an old one from the Democratic playbook; remember Spiro Agnew, James Watt, Newt Gingrich? See how they push to remove Rumsfeld today? The Democrats target the leaders to divide the opposition. This is more of the same.

Leftist Saul Alinski admonished his apprentices in ``Rules for Radicals`` to hold your opponent to his own standard, and this is precisely what is happening here; they are demanding Republicans commit hari kari. (A standard is, of course, never completely attainable by it`s very nature; we are fallen creatures living in a fallen world.) That they themselves never live up to THEIR OWN standards, and manage to brush such accusations aside, is indicative of their hypocrisy and the hypocrisy of the Mainstream Media which nurtures and coddles them.

The Democrats DO champion virtually every form of perverted sexual encounter, as Mr. Stein points out in his piece, yet the lynch-mob which has formed is furious at his suggestion that Democrats are gay-bashing. Hmmm. If the Trojan fits...

Why is it o.k. to have sex with a 16 year old boy, but not a 15 (legality aside)? Stein is further right when he argues that many homosexuals like `em young; ask them what age they were when they had their first homosexual encounter, and how old their partner was. You will find that most homosexuals were ``recruited`` while in their early teens by much older men.

But tell that to the lynch-mob, a mob which formed quite quickly, if you ask me-as if it were, uh, PLANNED. I think the war room is in high gear.

This whole affair has been a stomach-turner, and Foley is now claiming have been molested by a Catholic priest when he was a young boy. He`s trying to save his own skin by throwing the Catholic Church under the bus. The guy should just slink off into oblivion, where he belongs; maybe HE should become a Catholic priest, or monk, and really repent of his sins, instead of trying to justify them. He`s despicable.

But so are those who created this whole sordid business for political gain.

Weblog Commenting and Trackback by