Skip to comments.Hypocrisy, Democrat Style
Posted on 10/02/2006 6:17:26 AM PDT by libstripper
If there were an Academy Award for Hypocrisy, the surefire favorite for 2006 would be the Democratic Party. Just two recent items make the decision a virtual certainty:
The Representative Foley "scandal" is really worthy of a whole book on hypocrisy. On the one hand, we have a poor misguided Republican man who had a romantic thing for young boys. He sent them suggestive e-mail. I agree, that's not great. On the other hand, we have a Democratic party that worships ( not likes, WORSHIPS ) a man named Bill Clinton who did not send suggestive e-mails as far as we know, but who had a barely legal intern give him oral sex kneeling under his desk in the Oval Office while he talked on the phone to a Congressional Committee Chairman, took great pleasure in putting a cigar in her orifice and then smelling it and tasting it, and having her fellate him when in the sacred seat of power of the world's leading Republic.
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
Clinton and the intern,
Barney Frank's escort service,
the Mel Reynolds incident,
Teddy "the swimmer,"
the Dem list is ENDLESS.
Fight back, but don't expect the White House or Congress to do it. This will have to be done by the grass roots.
While both are sick, sick, behavior, I can't see how trying to equate inappropriate behavior among cosenting adults to someone trying to seduce a minor is a winning tactic.
One, while perverse, was legal (but the lie wasn't). The other may very well have been a crime though I'm withholding judgement until the smoke clears and the facts start to become visible.
I don't know, but if he is...I LOVE you, Ben!
Gerry Eastman Studds (born May 12, 1937) is a retired American politician, born in Mineola, New York. He served as a Democratic Congressman for Massachusetts from 1973 until 1996. He was the first openly homosexual member of the US Congress and, more generally, the first openly gay national politician in the US. In 1983, he admitted having a sexual relationship with a 17-year-old male page a decade earlier.
the Democratic Party
That is the difference between us and them. We get rid of our who do wrong. The Rats keep theirs
You nailed it. Gerry Studds should be the immediate response to this Foley matter. But does the GOP leadership, starting with (cough) Ken Mehlman have the guts to go this route? Sadly, I tend to doubt it.
If they got rid of everyone who did wrong on their side, there would be no on left.
Excuse me, but when did sexual harassment become sex between two consenting adults?
ML was a subordinate in a work environment to BC. Consenting or not this is by definition sexual harassment.
How many other employees/interns suffered because of the selfish actions of these two pigs?
FRANK: "Why can't we get BRAVO on Capitol Hill?"
Foley's main problem was being from the wrong state/district.
Folk in Massachusetts not only see nothing wrong with pedophilia between Congressmen and their pages, they consider such men worthy of multiple re-election and a rich contented retirement on the public dime, to a million dollar condo with a gay lover.
Therefore, John effin and Barney Franks et al ought to be speaking out in defense of Foley.
FWIW, Sexual harassment is not legal.
Don't forget Gerry Studds.
Sadly Gerry Studds a Democrat from Massachusetts, did more than e-mail sex messages to Pages, he actually admitted having a sexual affair with a male page...in 1983, and did not even leave the House until 1996, 13 years after the fact.
I'm not sure how age of consent laws factor into a case that involves emails that might have crossed state lines, but the age of consent in DC is 16--the age of the youngest page Foley turned his attention to. If it turns out to just involve DC jurisdiction then it really is no different than the Lewinsky fiasco. Maybe the House leadership knows this and in calling for an immediate investigation they want the parallel to come out quickly and more fully highlight the hypocrisy of the Democrats.
The situation is horrible, but I think it's being handled as best that it can be by the Republicans. Thank goodness Foley immediately resigned and is not trying to cling to office and drag the party down further with him. And thank goodness the leadership isn't hesitating on what to do.
On July 20, 1983, Gerry was censured for having an affair 10 years earlier with a male page. He turned his back as the charges against him were read. The anti-gay crew had worked hard to demonize him (as they would Barney Frank several years later over allegations of a male prostitute having clients in Frank's apartment). Gerry held a press conference with the page and admitted to a relationship. http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Gerry_Studds
*Yeah, right. "...poor,misguided...man...with a romantic thing...? That is an asbsolutely detestable framing of Foley's crimes. That formulation is sympathetic and seems to ecpress compassion for that miserable bastard who was courting catamites among those for whom he is supposed to be acting in loco parentis.
And what about his victims?
Of course Foley has now run oft to some drug rehab center and we can boo hoo over his addiciton to alcohol too.
Poiticising the issue is to be expected - all the bastards are politicans and act politically.
But, Stein fails miserably here right from the get go.
As usual, Ben Stein hits the nail squarely on its head.
And,boys and girls,lets not forget one more thing about Studds...after having been censured by the House,he rose on the floor of the House and delivered a blistering attack at those who voted to censure and made it clear that he felt *no* shame or *no* remorse for what he did.
I see where Foley is "coming out" as an alcholic. How about "coming out" as a homosexual? It will be very interesting to see how the Times and CNN handles that announcement when/if it occurs. After all, this is part and parcel of the "lifestyle"
ML was a subordinate in a work environment to BC. Consenting or not this is by definition sexual harassment.When did consenting sex between two adults, regardless if one is a subordinate of the other, become the definition of sexual harassment? Did I miss something?
Everyone is equal
BUT we need affirmative action to protect Women, Blacks, and...what would they do without us?
I know what Clinton did. I know how the Dems treat him. But that does not excuse Foley nor should it get him off the hot seat. He was wrong and must answer. And if the Repubs knew about it and kept it silenced...they were wrong also.
So I don't want to hear "Billy did it too!"
When it occurs AT WORK and one is a subordinate of the other, it is ALWAYS sexual harassment.
All the other interns could easily have file a grievance that ML had received preferential treatment, and won a lot of dough.
As I recall, Jordan went out of his way to help ML find a high paying, do nothing job in New York.
Did he do this for every intern or just ML?
I agree that in his efforts to properly paint Democrat hypocrisy, Mr. Stein goes too far in white-washing the actions of Mr. Foley.
However, one merely needs to remember the name "Garry Studds" (if his story had been a work of fiction, it would have been dismissed as poorly-written with ridiculously overwrought character names) to put this all into the proper perspective.
Republican pervert: resigns from Congress, faces criminal investigation, even calls for a special prosecutor [* chuckle *].
Democrat pervert: re-elected to Congress, gives flaming self-apologia from the floor of the House of Representatives, no mention of potentially illegal actions requiring criminal investigation.
But that's why we say that the while the Democrat Party is the Party of Satan, we do not say that the GOP is the Party of God, but rather, the Stupid Party.
Wouldn't Jordan's part be 1) either the coverup or 2) the blackmail.
Dear Your Nightmare,
Many organizations try to prevent romantic/sexual relationships between individuals where one is in a chain of command directly subordinate to the other. It can become difficult to tell if and when the relationship is truly consensual, or conversely, when it ceases to be truly consensual.
Where the disparity between the two partners is as great as in the case of Mr. Clinton and Ms. Lewinsky, it wouldn't be unfair to say that the relationship may be viewed as inherently abusive.
*Sam Francis lives :)
I agree with your point - up to a point. T'Hell was Hastert thinking when he heard about Foley's earlier emails? I would not have bought Foley's lame excuse. You wouldn't have either.
In Foley's case, where there was questionable email smoke, there was a sulphurous lust generating it.
Hastert and the republicans missed a golden opportunity to re-establish moral credibility, imo.
From what I discern thus far the emails to the pages where after they left D.C. and and the lurid IMs where after they turned 17. And that while the pages worked in Congress Foley didn't approach any of them for 'anything', the pages just found him "creepy".
Now over the years I've had to deal with some gay Architects, Engineers and building owners - and the way they act and talk can definitely be considered "creepy" by anyone whose straight and for sure by a 16 yo teen. Not exactly 'flaming', but close.
Note: I'm not sticking up for him, he's sick, but was any actual crime committed, i.e. age of consent?
An aside, if Hastert would have admonished Foley for the 'friendly' emails, would that be "Gay Bashing", or discrimination? And could Foley have sued?
But, expecting politicis would not act politically would be irrational.
I doubt emaiing and IM'ing was all Foley was doing
Sex between consenting adults, one of whom is a subordinate of the other, is not LEGALLY sexual harassment. But it is so easy to transform it into sexual harassment in litigation that it is sexual harassment FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES.
My understanding is that the e-mails were ambiguous, it's the IMs that really put Mr. Foley under. And I understand that Speaker Hastert only saw the e-mails initially.
In that it is no longer considered acceptable in our society to "discriminate" against folks because they are homosexual, Mr. Hastert may have been wary to be seen "persecuting" a "gay" Republican.
The problem is that the hypocrisy of this situation stretches well out of the confines of the US House of Representatives, and implicates the wider society.
Does it really matter if the 16 year old emailed him back. He's the adult...he's the one in position...
Obviously you have...do you know ANYTHING about employment law?
In one of the IM conversations that has been published, the page reminded Mr. Foley that he was not yet of age, yet Mr. Foley's side of the conversation may have crossed the line in terms of how explicit he was.
It's not just about Lewinsky, it's about the workplace and everyone else there.
yer right, as usual
Aw man! How'm I gonna finish my breakfast now??
I know its about the workplace and everyone else there. But, if there is no threat to the job...if the person who was "harassed" says there was no threat or advancement, and she/he had the affair and no regrets - has harassment taken place? No it hasn't... can the supervisor then be charged with harassment? You are saying its a blanket law. Supervisor/subordinate no matter what...harassment!
I must not have made myself clear. Nothing Foley did is defensible. HIs relationship with the pages ought have been based upon Foley acting in loco parentis. Personally, I suspect the emails and the IM'ing were not isolated instances. I sure hope that is all they represent though
The problem, Ben, is that the Republican Party sells itself as the party of morality, of Christianity, of decent behavior. It does not ally itself with sexual immorality or perversity of any sort. So for the Republican leadership to sweep this under the rug for so long and try to run this guy for reelection is hypocrisy.
And before anyone says that Denny Hastert didn't know about it until just the other day: Ben, the gay community in Foley's district in Palm Beach knew Foley to be queer and a predator. A lot of people on the Hill knew about this and had to warn young pages about Foley. It was not much of a secret, apparently.
What they had to warn the kids about was not that Foley had a "romantic" thing for young boys, but that he was a predator. To call what he was doing "a romantic thing" trivializes and glamorizes a filthy perversion.
Yes, what Gerry Studds and Teddy Kennedy and Bill Clinton and Barney Franks did was profoundly wrong. All of them ought to have been horsewhipped and driven from office, then put in jail. But if we are indeed the party of decent people, the party of normalcy, the party of Christianity, then we cannot make excuses for what Foley did.
The Republican Party is now going to lose big-time in November. That means we are all going to be punished for what this one evil man did.
I hadn't heard of them still being under age. So if that's the case Foley should be doing hard time. He'll be Tyrone's b*tch by day two in the Graybar Hotel.
It's because of people like Bill Clinton and Barney Frank that the Republicans are able to take the moral high ground in topics such as gay marriage and the like.
To keep this goober as the freaking chairman of the committee for exploited children all the while it was well known that he was gay and had a scent of scandal on him is beyond prepostorous.
I am more outraged at the way the MSM and Washington Post has made Woodward's book the top story of the week. It's disgraceful...and a good thing I'm not president.