The Soft Bigotry of Low Expectations For Democrats
October 3, 2006 by Laura | Trackback URI
The soft bigotry of low expectations for the Democratic party is illustrated once again in the hypocritical screams for Denny Hastert’s head. Mark Foley is a disgrace, and I haven’t seen one person defending him. Other than Foley, should a Republican give up any position they currently hold? Perhaps - after a proper investigation, conducted by a responsible party and not the media - has established who knew what, and when.
It is hypocritical in the extreme, given Barney Franks and Gerry Studds, that the Democrats want Hastert to resign. The left is now sarcastically commenting on those “good old fashioned Republican family values,” but I think it’s worth pointing out that when Republicans are caught in one of these scandals, they at least have the decency to resign. Bob Livingston is one example, and there are many others. Both Franks and Studds kept their jobs, even though they were the actual people involved, and not just a bystander like Hastert who had limited knowledge of what happened.
As far as Hastert, according to the Washington Times, having “forfeited the confidence of the public and his party,” believe me, that happened a long time ago. The Republican Party’s shameless earmarking and pandering to illegal immigrants, not to mention the craven support of John McCain’s restrictions on free speech, finally caused many of us to see the light where the Republicans are concerned. We still tend to think the Democrats are worse, so we vote Republican, but it’s far more grudging now except for the most die-hard partisans.
Here’s a blast from the past for you - way back when Clinton was being investigated, the Washington Post wrote this handy timeline of Congressional sex scandals. 1974 to 1994. Don’t make too much of the fact that there are 13 Democrats and only 8 Republicans on that list. Don’t forget that the Democrats had a very solid majority during those years.
Some equity on how Democrats and Republican scandals are treated is needed here. I’m not sure why, as a nation, we’ve come to expect so much less of Democrats than we do from Republicans. I expect a partisan media to portray things the way they do, but why do we tolerate it? And for the Democrats shouting, “What did he know and when did he know it?” I think we also deserve to know what they knew, and when they knew it.
[Added, because I don't intend to post on this again: Kim at Wizbang has an interesting post with a roundup of quotes from all over. This one particularly caught my eye, but the whole thing is well worth reading.]
But in today’s politically correct culture, it’s easy to understand how senior Republicans might well have decided they had no grounds to doubt Mr. Foley merely because he was gay and a little too friendly in emails. Some of those liberals now shouting the loudest for Mr. Hastert’s head are the same voices who tell us that the larger society must be tolerant of private lifestyle choices, and certainly must never leap to conclusions about gay men and young boys. Are these Democratic critics of Mr. Hastert saying that they now have more sympathy for the Boy Scouts’ decision to ban gay scoutmasters? Where’s Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi on that one?
[My responses are bracketed - Laura]
You might want to rethink posting that “fighting keyboardists” logo, as it depicts a chickenhawk - not a good thing to be, with the Foley revelations.
[One has nothing to do with the other.]
“The left is now sarcastically commenting on those “good old fashioned Republican family values,” but I think it’s worth pointing out that when Republicans are caught in one of these scandals, they at least have the decency to resign.”
This is a good example of good ‘ol conservative willful ignorance. You know as well as I that Foley hadn’t intended to resign - it wasn’t until the threatened release of damning information that he suddenly “got religion.”
[Really? What's your knowledge based on? Do you have ESP or some source inside Foley's office? Was it reported anywhere? But based on verifiable history - Studds, Frank, and that guy Clinton pardoned are just three; compared to Livingston and others who found work elsewhere - I'd say my statement is on pretty solid ground.]
If you’re “pursuing holiness,” you’d better run faster, ’cause it’s getting away from you . . .
[Whatever... :-?]
Yeah, I gotta agree with barfly. You’re confusing “pedophile” with “gay”. They are different things. That’s sorta like blaming Christianity for the West Borough Baptist Church that you rightfully despise. Fred Phelps happens to be Christian, but he & his “church” don’t represent Christianity, and Christians condemn him. Likewise, Foley happens to be gay, but he doesn’t represent homosexuality, and gays openly and aggressively condemn him. You’re not being very holy about this
Jprime, from where on earth are you getting that?? Of course I’m not confusing pedophile with gay.
Studds, Frank, and Foley engaged in some kind of sexual activity - in the case of the Democrats I listed, *actual sex* and in Foley’s case, “cyber” sex - with teenage boys who were all over the legal age of consent.
I didn’t mention either “pedophile” or “gay” in the post, and only quoted from Kim’s post that spotlighted the hypocrisy of Democrats on this issue who demand Hastert do something that in other situations has them screaming accusations. Can’t have it both ways.
My apologies Laura! And my fault for incorrectly interpretting your post
I’m just concerned because there are a lot of people out there arguing that “Foley did this because he’s gay, therefore homosexuality is the problem!”.
Yes, Foley is a pedophile, but his sexuality is incidental (there are plenty of straight pedophiles too). If you pay attention to the LGBT spokespeople, the gay community widely condemns his behavior.
I’m just concerned that this is getting turned into a classic witchhunt against gays & lesbians. They need to be brought into the church in order to save their souls, not burnt at the stake.
Meanwhile Foley needs LOTS therapy and, if he broke the law, prison!