Posted on 10/02/2006 6:17:26 AM PDT by libstripper
If there were an Academy Award for Hypocrisy, the surefire favorite for 2006 would be the Democratic Party. Just two recent items make the decision a virtual certainty:
The Representative Foley "scandal" is really worthy of a whole book on hypocrisy. On the one hand, we have a poor misguided Republican man who had a romantic thing for young boys. He sent them suggestive e-mail. I agree, that's not great. On the other hand, we have a Democratic party that worships ( not likes, WORSHIPS ) a man named Bill Clinton who did not send suggestive e-mails as far as we know, but who had a barely legal intern give him oral sex kneeling under his desk in the Oval Office while he talked on the phone to a Congressional Committee Chairman, took great pleasure in putting a cigar in her orifice and then smelling it and tasting it, and having her fellate him when in the sacred seat of power of the world's leading Republic.
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
On July 20, 1983, Gerry was censured for having an affair 10 years earlier with a male page. He turned his back as the charges against him were read. The anti-gay crew had worked hard to demonize him (as they would Barney Frank several years later over allegations of a male prostitute having clients in Frank's apartment). Gerry held a press conference with the page and admitted to a relationship. http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Gerry_Studds
*Yeah, right. "...poor,misguided...man...with a romantic thing...? That is an asbsolutely detestable framing of Foley's crimes. That formulation is sympathetic and seems to ecpress compassion for that miserable bastard who was courting catamites among those for whom he is supposed to be acting in loco parentis.
And what about his victims?
Of course Foley has now run oft to some drug rehab center and we can boo hoo over his addiciton to alcohol too.
Poiticising the issue is to be expected - all the bastards are politicans and act politically.
But, Stein fails miserably here right from the get go.
As usual, Ben Stein hits the nail squarely on its head.
And,boys and girls,lets not forget one more thing about Studds...after having been censured by the House,he rose on the floor of the House and delivered a blistering attack at those who voted to censure and made it clear that he felt *no* shame or *no* remorse for what he did.
I see where Foley is "coming out" as an alcholic. How about "coming out" as a homosexual? It will be very interesting to see how the Times and CNN handles that announcement when/if it occurs. After all, this is part and parcel of the "lifestyle"
ML was a subordinate in a work environment to BC. Consenting or not this is by definition sexual harassment.When did consenting sex between two adults, regardless if one is a subordinate of the other, become the definition of sexual harassment? Did I miss something?
Everyone is equal
BUT we need affirmative action to protect Women, Blacks, and...what would they do without us?
I know what Clinton did. I know how the Dems treat him. But that does not excuse Foley nor should it get him off the hot seat. He was wrong and must answer. And if the Repubs knew about it and kept it silenced...they were wrong also.
So I don't want to hear "Billy did it too!"
When it occurs AT WORK and one is a subordinate of the other, it is ALWAYS sexual harassment.
All the other interns could easily have file a grievance that ML had received preferential treatment, and won a lot of dough.
As I recall, Jordan went out of his way to help ML find a high paying, do nothing job in New York.
Did he do this for every intern or just ML?
Dear bornacatholic,
I agree that in his efforts to properly paint Democrat hypocrisy, Mr. Stein goes too far in white-washing the actions of Mr. Foley.
However, one merely needs to remember the name "Garry Studds" (if his story had been a work of fiction, it would have been dismissed as poorly-written with ridiculously overwrought character names) to put this all into the proper perspective.
Republican pervert: resigns from Congress, faces criminal investigation, even calls for a special prosecutor [* chuckle *].
Democrat pervert: re-elected to Congress, gives flaming self-apologia from the floor of the House of Representatives, no mention of potentially illegal actions requiring criminal investigation.
But that's why we say that the while the Democrat Party is the Party of Satan, we do not say that the GOP is the Party of God, but rather, the Stupid Party.
sitetest
Wouldn't Jordan's part be 1) either the coverup or 2) the blackmail.
Dear Your Nightmare,
Many organizations try to prevent romantic/sexual relationships between individuals where one is in a chain of command directly subordinate to the other. It can become difficult to tell if and when the relationship is truly consensual, or conversely, when it ceases to be truly consensual.
Where the disparity between the two partners is as great as in the case of Mr. Clinton and Ms. Lewinsky, it wouldn't be unfair to say that the relationship may be viewed as inherently abusive.
sitetest
*Sam Francis lives :)
I agree with your point - up to a point. T'Hell was Hastert thinking when he heard about Foley's earlier emails? I would not have bought Foley's lame excuse. You wouldn't have either.
In Foley's case, where there was questionable email smoke, there was a sulphurous lust generating it.
Hastert and the republicans missed a golden opportunity to re-establish moral credibility, imo.
From what I discern thus far the emails to the pages where after they left D.C. and and the lurid IMs where after they turned 17. And that while the pages worked in Congress Foley didn't approach any of them for 'anything', the pages just found him "creepy".
Now over the years I've had to deal with some gay Architects, Engineers and building owners - and the way they act and talk can definitely be considered "creepy" by anyone whose straight and for sure by a 16 yo teen. Not exactly 'flaming', but close.
Note: I'm not sticking up for him, he's sick, but was any actual crime committed, i.e. age of consent?
An aside, if Hastert would have admonished Foley for the 'friendly' emails, would that be "Gay Bashing", or discrimination? And could Foley have sued?
But, expecting politicis would not act politically would be irrational.
I doubt emaiing and IM'ing was all Foley was doing
Sex between consenting adults, one of whom is a subordinate of the other, is not LEGALLY sexual harassment. But it is so easy to transform it into sexual harassment in litigation that it is sexual harassment FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES.
Dear bornacatholic,
My understanding is that the e-mails were ambiguous, it's the IMs that really put Mr. Foley under. And I understand that Speaker Hastert only saw the e-mails initially.
In that it is no longer considered acceptable in our society to "discriminate" against folks because they are homosexual, Mr. Hastert may have been wary to be seen "persecuting" a "gay" Republican.
The problem is that the hypocrisy of this situation stretches well out of the confines of the US House of Representatives, and implicates the wider society.
sitetest
Does it really matter if the 16 year old emailed him back. He's the adult...he's the one in position...
Obviously you have...do you know ANYTHING about employment law?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.