October 3, 2006
BE GAY, JUST DON'T ACT GAY:
Paging Mr. Hastert: Could a gay Congressman be quarantined? (Opinion Journal, October 3, 2006)
In our admittedly traditional view, this was odd and suspect behavior, especially because Mr. Foley was well known as a homosexual even if he declined to publicly acknowledge it. And Mr. Hastert was informed that fellow Illinois Republican John Shimkus--who oversees the page program as part of a six-member board--spoke privately with Mr. Foley, who explained that the email was innocent.What next was Mr. Hastert supposed to do with an elected Congressman? Assume that Mr. Foley was a potential sexual predator and bar him from having any private communication with pages? Refer him to the Ethics Committee? In retrospect, barring contact with pages would have been wise.
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?
The indignation over Mr. Foley's despicable behavior, especially on the Left, is a helpful reminder that we aren't as tolerant of sexual aberrance as poliical correctness demands we be. That's why this is such an awful issue for Democrats. They can't be pro-gay on the one hand and anti-gay behavior on the other. Posted by Orrin Judd at October 3, 2006 3:29 PM
What it demonstrates is the extent to whoch p.c. tolerance of gays has always been a fashion statement, not a belief.
And it sure is great to see the Harriet Miers wing of the Conservative Movement make its annual screeching appearance to demand some political human sacrifices to alleviate their panic. Talk about reactionaries.
Posted by: Raoul Ortega at October 3, 2006 3:56 PMAnd it sure is great to see the Harriet Miers wing of the Conservative Movement make its annual screeching appearance to demand some political human sacrifices to alleviate their panic. Talk about reactionaries.
Posted by: Raoul Ortega at October 3, 2006 3:56 PMAnd it's even more fun watching them backpedal from their own ledge:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NWMxZWQ2YTMyOTRiMjRiMDFiNDc0ZGFkZDE5YzJhY2U=
I'm just wondering when we are going to hear about some GOP congresscritter arranging for some "inconvenient" person to be bumped off. I would not put it past the Dems/MSM right now.
Posted by: Brad S at October 3, 2006 4:03 PMIf the Dems were pro-blacks, they wouldn't blacken Lieberman's face in their ads, and conservative blacks house slaves and Oreos; if the Dems were pro-gay, they wouldn't accuse conservatives they couldn't stomach gay; if the Dems were pro-minorities, they wouldn't stereotype Indians working in gas stations and seven elevens; if the Dems were not anti-semites, they wouldn't hold George Allens's Jewish ancestry against him. The Dems are hypocrites in wedge issues, the Reps are hypocrites in family values.
Posted by: ic at October 3, 2006 4:10 PMAnd the Dems, who are anti-NSA program, anti-wire taps, anti-profiling, etc. are going after the GOP for not monitoring Foley's emails and keeping him away from the pages given his orientation.
Posted by: AWW at October 3, 2006 4:44 PMIC, how do you see the Republicans as hypocrites in family values? They seem pretty good about policing themselves.
Posted by: Robert Mitchell Jr. at October 3, 2006 4:45 PMNRO and fellow Beltway/NY "conservatives" (for instance Wash Times) are in full Miers/Katrina mode. Where is Rod Drehers to make it complete?
Posted by: Bob at October 3, 2006 4:52 PMUm, guys, skill at policing themselves is not the same thing as being, or not being, hypocrites. This is true regardless of whether one thinks their policing skills per se are good or bad.
If they intentionally supported that which they publicly disavowed, that's hypocrisy. But if they just plain did a poor job at policing, that's a mistake.
Don't worry, we can still bitch & moan and use words like "botched" and "incompetent," if we like. I'm not trying to take our fun away.
To not be hypocrites they'd have to refuse to seat openly gay members. They should do so, but don't hold your breath.
Posted by: oj at October 3, 2006 8:31 PMSpeaking of gruel-thin "allegations" of cover-up and panicking NRO conservatives, did any of you either listen to Rush Limbaugh interview Speaker Hastert, or get a transcript?
http://radioequalizer.blogspot.com/2006/10/rush-limbaugh-dennis-hastert-foley.html#comments
Seems to me Rush is willing to engage in battle with his own kind, in order to keep the House in GOP hands. If so, you NRO-types might be advised to surrender now!
Posted by: Brad S at October 3, 2006 8:37 PM