Democratic attacks show hypocrisy
By now, you’ve probably heard that the House of Representatives is short one Republican after the resignation of Congressman Mark Foley. He resigned after allegations that he’d sent sexually explicit e-mails and instant messages to a former page. He’s now facing criminal charges.
Almost simultaneously, the Democratic Party got on its moral high horse and alleged Republican trickery for hiding a sexual predator in their midst. (Never mind that no sex actually took place.) Democrat candidates have denounced any Republican opponent who’s previously received money from Foley—as if that constituted tacit approval of his behavior. Receiving money from Foley, in and of itself, proves nothing—except that those who follow such intellectual reasoning have a single-digit IQ or are clinically insane—ironically, the very same qualifications it takes to be a Democrat.
Let’s be honest, though. Democrats love going on moral witch-hunts only when it serves their purposes.
Consider their last foray into said improprieties, which was at the beginning of the 1990s. Back then, they were on a veritable crusade to purge the world of sexual improprieties. Sens. John Tower and Bob Packwood were drawn and quartered for their indiscretions. And let us not forget the inquisition of then-Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas. Democrats held him up as the poster child for their issue du jour: “sexual harassment” by sexist GOP pigs.
Then along came Bill Clinton, and oh, how that tune changed.
Here was Democratic strategist James “Ragin'-Cajun” Carville defending Clinton after he was accused of sexual harassment by a former staffer, Paula Jones: “If you drag a hundred dollar bill through a trailer park, you never know what you’ll find.”
Clinton would, of course, eventually become the first president found in contempt of court and would subsequently get disbarred by the Arkansas State Bar after pleading guilty to lying under oath. He would then settle that “frivolous” lawsuit Jones brought against him for $850,000.
And let’s recall Kathleen Willey. She claimed that Clinton took her hand and placed it on his crotch. Uber-feminist Gloria Steinem actually said that this didn’t constitute sexual harassment because when asked to, Clinton stopped. (Instead of “no means no,” we now have the “one-grope rule.")
And let’s recall Bill’s infamous finger-wagging while denying that he’d not “had sexual relations with that woman"—referring to intern Monica Lewinsky.
Meanwhile, Democrats suggested the rest of us uptight, sexually repressed fuddy-duddies should just lighten up. A theory they salivated over for five minutes when Congressman Bob Livingston’s, R-La., extra-marital activities made headlines during Clinton’s impeachment hearings. I say “five minutes” because Livingston at least had the fortitude to do what Clinton wouldn’t: He resigned.
So clearly, when given a choice, Democrats prefer to sell out their principles when it suits them. Which makes their carping over Foley all the more hypocritical.
As though they couldn’t go any further, Democratic strategist Bob Beckel suggested on Fox’s Hannity & Colmes that Foley’s sexual orientation—he’s gay—should have raised questions about his relationships with pages. (Still not a word from gay rights groups or Democrats about that theory.) But if I follow Beckel’s reasoning, then it seems to me that gays serving as scout masters, teachers or anywhere else where they would have access to young men would also “raise questions” about their capacity to do so.
In any event, is there any doubt what the response would be from gay-rights groups and bleating Democrats if a Republican strategist suggested the same thing and Foley were a Democrat?