The Democrat Party – how long and loudly has it touted its role as the refuge of the minorities, the beacon of tolerance in an unfair and unforgiving society, the voice of those who otherwise would not be heard. Under the auspices of the big tent welcoming the unwelcome, those who were not accepted elsewhere were embraced by those who relished the role of the non-judgmental.
Until, of course, the opportunity arose where the Party leaders could sandbag a gay congressman and use him as political chum to try to take over the House and Senate in the upcoming 2006 election.
The real details of the plot have started to emerge: the original e-mail, maybe “over-friendly”, maybe not. Certainly a stretch to justify a wholesale panic investigation of the House leadership. Who was it that went public with the information? None other than an employee of the Human Rights Campaign. Gives a whole new meaning to the term political suicide”!
There are way too many legitimate questions that have yet to be asked, let alone answered, about this entire mess. But there is one that I have to place on the table: How can Nancy Pelosi explain to her constituents from the Bay area – many of whom are gay – that she has no problem being a ring leader in destroying the reputation, the career, and the life of a gay man for her own personal and political gain?
Lest you think I alone am troubled by this phenomena, spend a few minutes reading Camille Paglia’s interview in Salon, where she castigates her party.
“I was especially repulsed by the manipulative use of a gay issue for political purposes by my own party. I think it was not only poor judgment but positively evil. Whatever short-term political gain there is, it can only have a negative impact on gay men… Why don’t the Democratic strategists see this? These tactics are extremely foolish…What in the world are the Democrats thinking? We saw the beginning of this in that grotesque moment in the last presidential debates when John Kerry came out with that clearly prefab line identifying Mary Cheney as a lesbian. Since when does the Democratic Party use any gay issue in this coldblooded way as a token on the chessboard? You’d expect this stuff from right-wing ideologues, not progressives…”
The dirty little secret? The Dems have done this for years. The gays are just the most recent example.
Pathetic.
How can Nancy Pelosi explain to her constituents from the Bay area – many of whom are gay – that she has no problem being a ring leader in destroying the reputation, the career, and the life of a gay man for her own personal and political gain?
I am sure that the parents of thos pages he was hitting on don’t mind. This has nothing to do with him being gay, as I have pointed out on my own site, but rather with the fact that he was a pervert. Normally conservatives are always rilled up about sexual predators living next to them and such, but in this case, they have defended one just because that is what they need to do to oppose Democrats. Foley hit on kids. Foley wrote pretty suggestive e-mails to kids. The fact that he was gay only seems to matter to conservative types, just like it always does. Take gay marriage for example, the only people who focus on the ‘gay’ part of that are the republicans/conservatives; the rest of us are capable of focusing on the ‘loving relationship’ part of it. Same with Foley; he wasn’t a gay Republican, he was a perverted Republican.
It is very disturbing. The democrats have a history of destroying those minorites they profess to be representing as long as they are republicans. The racist statements they make and just pass off as politics as long as it is their party making those statements.
It makes me think that they do not truly believe in their causes but only use them (and people) as tools to obtain their goals. Either that or individuals are as expendable as a child (feutus) to further their causes.
They have also shown that they are not above using people’s illnesses to obtain their goals ala M. J. Fox.
I am also reminded of the lies they spread to get partial birth abortion approved. What ever it takes to get what they believe is right put into law.
Hypocricy doesn’t quite cover it, hubris is close, but there has to be a better word to explain their behavior. A behavior that will sacrafice their own stated beliefs to obtain their goals. Maybe one word will not describe what they have become.
colby;
I disagree, it has nothing to do about sex. It is totally about power and who can get the upper hand. Democrats care nothing about their stated positions when it gets in the way for a power grab. They do not care about the pages or their families.
According to Newt Gingrich on the Sean Hannity show today, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) voted for Gerry Studds to head House committees 5 times AFTER he had been found guilty by the House ethics committee and censured by the House for having a gay sexual relationship with an underage congressional page.
That is not the morale high ground of someone who cares about pages or their families. Pelosi backed a known pedophile who was a democrat when it helped her achieve her goals. And it is definetly not just about gay sex.
There’s certainly more to this, not the least of which is the continued climb of the acceptable age of consent. Realize that less than 60 years ago a 16 year old could marry. And going back farther, or perhaps just to Alabama, you’ll find that 14 can marry, and we all know that marriage has a profound affect on sex. (Yes, yes, eventually it ruins it, but not immediately). Given that this was a society norm from the beginning of humanity until just around a century ago, I think rational debate about true pedophilia is needed, but it won’t happen. And, given that most teens are sexually active, let’s leave this debate off for now.
If you really want to debate the power plays that are made in Washington, you have to admit that the republicans are just as bad. The dems fucked foley, the republicans fucked clinton. Who here thinks that every republican president was completely faithful while in office? If you do, please contact me, I have a bridge that I’d like to sell you.
As for Studds, he was re-elected by his constituents, legally, and at the same that he was elected, the republican, Rep. Dan Crane who was chastised at the same time was not. The difference between the two of them, aside from the fact that Studds was gay and Crane was not, is that Studds stood up and told the rest of the house to stuck it. Crane got weepy and apologized and lost. Studds knew he hadn’t done anything illegal, and while it might have been unethical or immoral, he also knew he wasn’t alone. I suspect that having congress, both houses, all 538 of them, telling me that I’m immoral and wrong would just reaffirm that I’m doing the right things, too.
I would also like to point out that many people have affairs, mostly with someone much their junior. The age of consent, not-withstanding Alabama, ranges from 16 – 18 years of age. Both Crane and Studds were with 17 year olds, and, having been one myself, I can tell you I knew what I was doing.
And I wanted the practice, too.
Now, all of you, go find a set of legos, build a bridge and get over it.
Republicans lynch on principle, then? ‘Cause let me tell you, I noticed a whole lot of same-sex marriage amendments, race-baiting, gay-baiting, and other divisive maneuvers coming out the GOP, so if it isn’t for politics, is it just ’cause you really, really hate minorities?
Kevin;
I see things slightly different. Yes both sides have had their peccadilloes, but when republicans do it they are held to a higher standard. Not only by their constituents and fellow republicans but by the democrats as well. But when a democrat gets caught democrats are the first to rally behind their candidate even thought they are the first to decry the republicans.
It is not a matter of sex, or theft, or lying but a matter of hypocrisy.
Matt Singer;
You’re trying to change the subject. You’re trying to make this about republicans and minorities when the comment was about liberal hypocrisy. Democrats claim they are the only ones supporting minorities yet they only do so until their own needs intrude, then they will sacrifice their supporters for power.
John Kerry was an example of the premise of this posting.
He purports to support the troops yet he quickly demeaned them to take a political jab at the war to prop up his position. Now he claims it is all a joke gone wrong and that republicans are blowing everything out of proportion as he still refuses to apologize.
Now imagine G. Bush or C. Burns saying the same thing. What would the democrats be saying then?
Wow what a great fiction Blog! Since when did the Democrats ever support married men who like to bugger under age boys? The guys a SCUM BAG gay or not. Man, there’s plenty of righties in MT that like to turn a blind eye to some pretty deviant stuff. Hmm.
Watch your backs,
Californiamontanacan
Dear Californiamontanacan:
Bet you didn’t do well in the reading/comprehension part of the SAT’s, huh? You totally missed the point of the essay.
Before spouting off as you did (above) you might want to touch bases with a few facts too: 1.)Foley is not married, 2.) the allegations at the heart of this mess involved a young man over the age of consent and, to date, the allegations stop far short of “buggering”, and 3.) remember Gerry Studds? Three strikes – you’re out!
All that aside, the premise of my piece stands: the Democrats will proclaim loud and long their affinity for the oppressed unless and until they can use them to berate their political opponents.
I find it interesting that John Kerry could say he thinks that the military is for idiots and the Helena IR does not bat any eye. The democrats drink the cool-aid and believe he was joking and it went wrong.
Yet an evangelist takes drugs and has a gay affair, everything the democrats support as ‘choice’ and the Helena IR and the democrats play it for what it is worth to attack conservatives right before an election.
Who ever heard of this evangelist before he was outed by a gay liberal meth dealer trying to affect the election? Does he even purport to be a conservative or a republican? Yet with broad biased strokes they have layed it at the conservatives feet. And how come nobody has called for the arrest of this meth dealer, he has addmitted to a criminal act.
Yet the democrats raped the evangelist in the media for their own agenda, a person they supposedly support.
Their dual standard is not only as reavealing as a spotlight in a den of inequity but just as biased John Kerry at a military rally.
Moderator;
I have to learn how to use the spell check before I post. I just get so heated when I read some of the drival from liberals.
It is spelled ‘admitted’ not ‘addmitted’.
Plenty of comments came after the essay there BCM. I won’t name all the wretches involved in GOP sex scandals as of late… obviously your such a sharp fella and so incredibly up on current affairs that it would be a waste of time. Bugger boy deserves everything he got… and probably more.
Don’t forget to vote tomorrow!
Californiamontanacan
jlw- GOP wouldn’t have(hasn’t) done the same?
-Californiamontanacan
CAMT’n
Examples?
Here’s a few that show it’s a two way street: * Alexander Hamilton-Maria Reynolds affair (1797)
* Petticoat Affair or Eaton Affair
* President James Buchanan and Senator William Rufus King were the subject of scandalous gossip (alleging a homosexual affair) in Washington, DC for many years
* Warren Harding-Carrie Phillips-Nan Britton mistresses and pay-offs
* Walter Jenkins (1964)
* Neil Goldschmidt (D-OR) former Oregon governor — affair with underage female, 1970s
* Wilbur Mills-Fanne Foxe (1974)
* Wayne Hays-Elizabeth Ray scandal (1976)
* John Young of Texas (1976)
* Allan Howe of Utah (1976)
* Fred Richmond of New York (1978)
* Robert Bauman of Maryland (1980)
* Jon Hinson of Mississippi (1981)
* Thomas Evans-Paula Parkinson (1981)
* John G. Schmitz (R-CA) — Extramarital affair resulting in offspring (1982)
* Dan Crane of Illinois and Gerry Studds of Massachusetts censured July 20, 1983 in Congressional Page sex scandal (1983)
* Gary Hart-Donna Rice scandal (1987)
* Ernie Konnyu of California (1987)
* Washington Senator Brock Adams (1988)
* Jim Bates of California (1988)
* Gus Savage of Illinois (1989)
* Barney Frank of Massachusetts (1989)
* Donald “Buz” Lukens of Ohio, multiple scandals (1989, 1990)
* Arlan Stangeland of Minnesota (1990)
* Virginia Senator Chuck Robb-Tai Collins affair (1991)
* Clarence Thomas-Anita Hill sexual harassment scandal at time of Supreme Court nomination hearings (1991)
* Oregon Senator Bob Packwood sexual harassment scandal (1995)
* Mel Reynolds of Illinois (1995)
* Bob Livingston of Louisiana (1998)
* Henry Hyde “youthful indiscretion” (1998)
* Bob Barr sexual hypocrisy alleged by Larry Flynt (1998)
* Bill Clinton – Monica Lewinsky scandal (1998)
* Newt Gingrich (R-GA) — affair with congressional staffer 1993-1999
* Chandra Levy-Gary Condit (2001)
* Kentucky Governor Paul Patton affair; became public after former mistress alleged retaliation against her business (2002)
* Steven C. LaTourette of Ohio, affair with staffer (2003)
* West Virginia Governor Bob Wise affair with state employee (2003)
* The Washingtonienne scandal (2004)
* Arnold Schwartzenegger (R-CA) California Governor — admitted groping women early in career
* Illinois Republican U.S. Senate candidate Jack Ryan Sex Clubs (2004)
* Ed Schrock (R-VA) alleged to have solicited male prostitutes (2004)
* Don Sherwood (R-PA) — Extramarital affair with accusations of abuse (2004)
* New Jersey Democratic Governor Jim McGreevey – closeted homosexual extramarital affair (2004)
* Mark Foley; accusations of sexual harassment of underage congressional page (2006)
Regardless of what HAS happened, the GOP would have done the same given the chance.
-Californiamontanacan
jlw, tried to post a slew of sex scandals from both sides, but it didn’t show for whatever reason. Google sex scandal and have fun.
-Californiamontanacan
CAMT’an
You changed the gist of the post. This was not about scandals or sex crimes.
This was about how the democrats say they support certain groups or ideas, i.e., gays, but then when they find out that someone from the other party is gay they will out them for political gain. It is hypocrisy that was the subject of this post. You are trying to cloud the subject to defend democrats.
It would be like I said pitbulls are dangerous and you posted that dogs sh*t. Both are true but you have gone from a specific argument to a generality about a different subject.
This was not about “using” a gay man. This was about using a fraud and a hypocrite to point out the fraud and hypocrisy rampant in the party that knew of his indiscretions and did nothing about them because it was willing to sacrifice young pages to protect its own interests. Your pretending to be disturbed with the Democrats over this is just lame, lame, lame.
Frank;
Dems supported;
Studds after he had sex with an underage page.
Called C. Rice Aunt Jemima after saying they support women and especially black women.
Called a black Rep. canidate an ‘Oreo Cookie’.
And so far I don’t recall any proof that republicans hid anything, but maybe you have information from secret testimony the rest of us don’t have. How do you know they just didn’t understand the depth of the problem because they were tackling other problems?
jlw,
Whatever. Go back and read the posts. I asked if the GOP wouldn’t have done the same, you asked for examples, I gave them to you.
The ballot must have been tricky….. I hope you didn’t inadvertantly vote for Senator tester.
-Californiamontanacan
“Whatever”, the answer of someone who does not want to argue because they are losing.
You said you gave examples, but again your examples were of general scandals. The original premise was about hypocrisy. Those who say they support a group but do so only to achieve a goal and are willing to abandon their stated standards for that goal. Specific examples were given to support the premise that you didn’t refute.
I also like your dismissal of me as too stupid to fill out a ballot. Absolute example of someone losing an argument. Attack the person not the premise a sure sign of someone backing a losing argument.
But thanks for your condescension, I will give it all the due concern it deserves. Now go have a conservative day. 8^)
It is interesting to note the differences between the treatment of Mel Gibson and Michael Richards by both the liberal media and the liberal associates of Richards.
For those who have denied that there is hypocracy from the liberals, have fun expaining the different treatment.
Wow. Yet another strawman. I love it when you guys do this. Is it any less visable than blindingly obvoius that all of this was about Mark Foley being a pedophile, and not gay? He was a PEDOPHILE people! You want to talk about throwing gay people under the bus, look no further than Dick Cheney. He thinks it’s a blessing to have a pregnant, gay daughter, yet it’s evil for anyone else. THAT is rank hipocricy.