I've seen this kind of comment on FR too often in these past few days. There are two things wrong with it.
The first is that we are more than 20 years removed from the Gerry Studds incident, and I doubt ANY politician would get away with something like that now. Look at what happened to Bubba 10 years later. He tried to cover up something far less vile than what Studds did, and the end of his presidency was a complete ruin. Now it's even ten years later, and no matter how you slice it, Foley is a hideous creep who shames the Republican party and the House of Representatives. The public won't tolerate that any more. McGreevey in NJ is a perfect example. He's a rat, and not only did he have to resign, but a senator who should be safe in his blue state is likely to lose as part of the fallout.
The other major problem is that for decades now, the Republicans have made a name for themselves as the party of family values, morals, and clean living. It's good for a few percentage points in every race, and everyone knows it. When someone is caught breaking that, though, watch out. Nobody has further to fall than someone who has reached the top.
Lastly... this guy is scum. Why try to justify or defend him? *If* you succeed in making people accept or ignore what he did, all you have really accomplished is lose those few percentage points. The only way to deal with this is to cast him out.
Look at the Democrats' tactics this election. They don't have a strategy or a platform. They just find individuals who have done something wrong, broken the Republican code somehow, and drag that individual down. It has happened over and over... everyone in Ohio, DeLay, possibly Santorum and Burns, now Foley. Put forth candidates that can't be dragged down like that and they will win.
As for the Vagina Monologues, I have no idea. I've never seen it and I never plan to. My guess is it is received much better by the loony left than it is by moderates or conservatives. Your statement that it is viewed as "empowering" is probably true; the only problem is the people who think that can't tell the difference between degrading and empowering. 13 year olds having sex at all, let alone with an adult woman? You're empowered! Give me a break.
And I've seen THIS kind of comment on FR too often the past few weeks. What's wrong with it is I'm doing no such thing--why do you have the need to get on your moral high horse and accuse me of such?
I am talking exclusively about how this kind of situation is treated by the mainstream media. Why can't you see that? I expressed it simply enough. I defy you to cut and paste where I justified or defended Foley--go ahead.
You can't. Because I didn't.
Discussions of morality are complex. Reducing them as you have is pointless and in fact dangerous. I don't have to say "Foley is scum and I'm glad he quit, and he should be investigated for this" every...single...time to prove my moral bona fides to you, whoever you are. It's like op-ed columns that don't begin with "This is my opinion"--it's a given.
As for the Studds situation, he remained in office for years after he was exposed, so to speak, during the Reagan years--hardly a time of liberal excess. Clinton DID get away with it--what planet are you living on? Where was the resignation? Neither Studds nor Clinton resigned over actual sexual situations--Foley did (PROPERLY I repeat for those who refuse to get it) for TALKING about it.
Disagree with me all you want, but please--disagree with what I wrote, not about things I didn't write so you can show us how wonderful you are.
Well, yeah--that was my point. So what's your problem with it?
BTT