But other than be a gay Republican, what is it that Foley did that Democrats object to? I know what he did that conservatives object to, but what are the liberals complaining about?
Skipper: As I say, I understand what conservatives are made about. But the state of play as of today, as far as I know, is that Foley interacted with former pages, all of whom were above the age of consent and none of whom were "interacted with" in person. While we could get new information, such a actual sex with someone below the age of consent, at which point I would understand the liberal case against him, that hasn't happened yet.
Isn't the Democratic outrage, to the extent that there is any real outrage, about "hypocracy?" rather than sex? In other words, just because he's a gay Republican.
I think the hypocrisy angle works regardless of the, umm, gender distribution. For that matter, it is party independent.
The voters have no more stomach for lewd text messages to female pages than male, whether by Republicans or Democrats.
The far more important question is who knew what, when. The initial indications are that the Republican leadership didn't learn a thing, no matter how glaringly apparent, from the Church's scandal.
If anything is going to leave a mark, that will be it.
I think that the Dems are angry that Foley resigned before they could demand his resignation.
Of course it is about the hypocrisy (note the correct spelling). Only because the hypocrisy angle works. But the Dems have become a purely Machiavellian party at this point, they really don't stand for anything. They stand for everything and nothing, depending on where their advantage lies. When one of theirs goofs up, it is either about compassion for human frailty (I'm an alcoholic, I'm a Gay American )or about Big Brother in our bedrooms for the Republicans to be pointing out their misdeeds. When it is a Republican, its all about rich white men (or men, in Clarence Thomas's case) using their positions of power to prey upon the vulnerable women or children in their employ. To Democrats children are like adults when they "explore their sexuality", but adults are children when they go off to war or are harassed by a Republican.
6 comments:
But other than be a gay Republican...
Isn't that enough?
David:
Methinks you, probably intentionally, take moral relativism one bridge too far.
Or, if not moral relativism itself, at least the voters appetite for it.
Thought experiment: what do you suppose would be the reaction if, say, Bill Frist had written thematically identical text messages to a female page.
Unless you can assert the response would be different, then we are not talking about gayness here, but something entirely different.
Skipper: As I say, I understand what conservatives are made about. But the state of play as of today, as far as I know, is that Foley interacted with former pages, all of whom were above the age of consent and none of whom were "interacted with" in person. While we could get new information, such a actual sex with someone below the age of consent, at which point I would understand the liberal case against him, that hasn't happened yet.
Isn't the Democratic outrage, to the extent that there is any real outrage, about "hypocracy?" rather than sex? In other words, just because he's a gay Republican.
Not if they all turn out to have been former pages.
David:
I think the hypocrisy angle works regardless of the, umm, gender distribution. For that matter, it is party independent.
The voters have no more stomach for lewd text messages to female pages than male, whether by Republicans or Democrats.
The far more important question is who knew what, when. The initial indications are that the Republican leadership didn't learn a thing, no matter how glaringly apparent, from the Church's scandal.
If anything is going to leave a mark, that will be it.
I think that the Dems are angry that Foley resigned before they could demand his resignation.
Of course it is about the hypocrisy (note the correct spelling). Only because the hypocrisy angle works. But the Dems have become a purely Machiavellian party at this point, they really don't stand for anything. They stand for everything and nothing, depending on where their advantage lies. When one of theirs goofs up, it is either about compassion for human frailty (I'm an alcoholic, I'm a Gay American )or about Big Brother in our bedrooms for the Republicans to be pointing out their misdeeds. When it is a Republican, its all about rich white men (or men, in Clarence Thomas's case) using their positions of power to prey upon the vulnerable women or children in their employ. To Democrats children are like adults when they "explore their sexuality", but adults are children when they go off to war or are harassed by a Republican.
Post a Comment