The Democrats were foaming at the collective mouth not long ago over wiretaps and other government intrusions into individual rights, but have no problem with delving into Foley's (albeit tawdry) emails and text messages.Meanwhile, Bruce at Gay Patriot says that the naughty Dems are passing around a list of top-level Republican congressional aides who are gay. The source is not known.
They too are not immune from congressional page groping, and a certain veteran senator from New England has long had a reputation for not keeping his hands where they belong. When former Democratic Representative Gary Stubbs was caught in the crossfire of the 1983 page scandal, they lined up behind him (pardon the term) despite his seamy conduct, which in retrospect seems worse than anything Foley has been accussed of doing.
David Corn, who claims to have what he calls "The List," says at DavidCorn.com that CBS News correspondent Gloria Borger reports that there’s anger among House Republicans at what an unidentified House GOPer called:
"A 'network of gay staffers and gay members who protect each other and did the Speaker a disservice.' The implication is that these gay Republicans somehow helped page-pursuing Mark Foley before his ugly (and possibly illegal) conduct was exposed. The List -- drawn up by gay politicos -- is a partial accounting of who on Capitol Hill might be in that network."I have a copy. I’m not going to publish it. For one, I don’t know for a fact that the men on the list are gay. And generally I don’t fancy outing people -- though I have not objected when others have outed gay Republicans, who, after all, work for a party that tries to limit the rights of gays and lesbians and that welcomes the support of those who demonize same-sexers.
"What’s interesting about The List -- which includes nine chiefs of staffs, two press secretaries, and two directors of communications -- is that (if it’s accurate) it shows that some of the religious right’s favorite representatives and senators have gay staffers helping them advance their political careers and agendas. These include Representative Katherine Harris and Henry Hyde and Senators Bill Frist, George Allen, Mitch McConnell and Rick Santorum. Should we salute these legislators for being open-minded enough to have such tolerant hiring practices?"
Bruce says that the the Foley scandal is not about homosexuality:
"Some family value conservatives are suggesting it is.
"But anytime a gay Republican is outed by events, a dicey issue is raised: what about those GOPers who are gay and who serve a party that is anti-gay? Are they hypocrites, opportunists, or just confused individuals? Is it possible to support a party because you adhere to most of its tenets–even if that party refuses to recognize you as a full citizen? The men on The List might want to think hard about these questions–as they probably already have–for if I have a copy of The List, there’s a good chance it will be appearing soon on a website near everyone."
Well, sorry to rustle Bruce's bustle, but this scandal is about homosexuality. It's also about:
<>* Pederasty.
* Pedophilia.
* Child abuse.
* Alcoholism.
* Institutional accountability.
I hasten to add that being gay doesn't make one a pederast or pedophile, but to ignore those possible aspects of the Foley scandal so as to not upset gays doesn't wash. with this blogger nor should it was anywhere else.David Corn, whom I suspect spends a lot of time admiring himself in the mirror, also misses the larger picture.
The only thing I regret about Masturgate is that the timing sucks. It's a big distraction. The focus needs to be on an Iraq troop withdrawal plan, making the homeland safer against terrorism, Iran and North Korea, giving the middle class and poor some economic relief, national health insurance, and so on and so forth.
But when a wingnut like Senator Santorum, a right-wing GOP standard bearer, compares homosexuality to bestiality, incest and polygamy, then the sexual orientation of a fellow Republican like Foley, who conveniently came out of the closet only when he went into alcohol rehab, is a pertinent issue.
This is not because homosexuality is wrong. Of course it's not, and I defend the right of anyone to be straight, gay or whatever they may be destined to be. But it is an issue in this case because of the crass hypocrisy of Santorum and most Republicans who suck up to the conservative Christianists over gender issues that are none of the business of Congress or government, not to mention the fact that Foley was the longtime leader of the House caucus on children and troubled youth.
By the way, more and more Americans agree, and the increasing acceptance of gays in society over the last several years has reaffirmed for me the fundamental tolerance and goodness that underlies our society but too often remains hidden.
American society always has been hopelessly confused about sex and sexuality. Take the Clinton impeachment circus. Please!
The U.S. is far more uptight than it's European cousins are, but at the same time worships sex. TV, the movies and other media are full of it. Ten-year-olds go to school heavily made up and in tight skirts and uplift bras. Pornographic Internet web sites are by far the most visited.
Herewith a modest proposal:
Let's replace the bald eagle, a magnificently monogamous creature, as the U.S. national symbol with that slutty Hester Prynne.
He, . . . er, she is not a happy camper.
12 comments:
How is this scandal about homosexuality? You quote someone saying that it isn't about homosexuality, and then just say "well... the scandal is about homosexuality." If it is about homosexuality, then explain why it is.
Also Bruce at Gay Patriot doesn't mention in his post that the "List" was created by Democrats.
Also, according to the Hill, it was a GOP staffer who gave out the emails.
Looks like you have some rewriting to do.
Points well taken, and your comments point up my soft underbelly and that of most bloggers -- the need for an editor.
I have added a line about the source of the list being unclear.
I am clear when I say that Bruce is wrong that this isn't about homosexuality. As I note, it's about homosexuality and a heap of other things, too.
Thanks.
Well, mainly because I think this has nothing to do with homosexuality, but why is it because of homosexuality? I mean, pedophilia is a no-brainer. But there is a lot of argument back and forth as to whether Foley being gay has anything at all to do with it.
It has every-forking-thing to do with homosexuality, and all the more so because Foley swore up and down for years that he wasn't gay and decided to come out of the closet in rehab not because coming clean was the right thing to do, but because he was trying to explain away his perverted conduct.
As I made clear, I don't care whether a person is straight or gay.
But I care a whole lot when (a.) he bangs the Family Value drum ceaselessly, (b.) is head of the House caucus on children and troubled children, and (c.) is a sexual predator.
Case closed.
Well, if it is about homosexuality, the one of the reasons Foley went after boys is because he was gay. That, of course, is not the case, but making it about homosexuality makes it look like being a homosexual is a prerequisite for being a sexual deviant.
And I know you care about Foley being a himocrite and a criminal, but I don't really see what that has to do with anything.
Also, just because I don't think that this has anything to do with homosexuality doesn't mean that I am soft on terrorism.
Well, I'm about played out on this one because I fail to see where sexual orientation is not an issue.
I cannot imagine why Foley went after boys if he's a red-blooded hetero.
I detect that you may be a few years younger than me.
If that is true, I say that only to bring up the point that as someone nearing 60, I can recall a time when virtually all gays were closested. It has only been the last few years that there has been a gay revolution anywhere near similar to the women's revolution of the late 60s.
If you are indeed younger, you came of age at a time when gays were less closeted and more accepted, and that is a good thing, because gender roles need to be understood.
What does this have to do with a drooling pervert like Foley? I'm not sure, except to suggest that your perspective and mind may differ.
Please don't get worn out. If someone is seriously challenging your viewpoint, you should at least give them a serious answer and not say that your getting tired.
Anyway, by your logic, were those Catholic clergymen who molested the boys gay? Did gaynees become a prerequisite to fondling boys? What you are saying here in your blog, and, correct me if I am wrong, that every male who sexually molests a boy is gay.
Methinks that you want it both ways in this instance. To avoid generalizations but to put certain constraints on those generalizations. Sorry, that won't work.
I have taken pains to add some language to my post to make sure that no one thinks that I am suggesting, as you kind of do, that because a person is gay he therefore is a pederast or pedophile. That's ridiculous.
Is a pedophile necessarily gay or alternately has an ambiguous sexual orientation? I kind of sort of think so, but I don't have my shrink's hat on at a moment.
Does that make all the priests who fondled and sodomized many thousands of boys in the U.S., Ireland and elsewhere gay? I doubt it.
Bottom line: Foley's sexual orientation can't be ignored or shunted aside.
Well, I think we should just agree to disagree with this. I don't think matters because his orientation is just outside the scope and is being used by the right as a way to dodge the issue (i.e. well, you see why he was bad, because he was gay... see the awful WSJ editorial). And I think by beating the gay drum you play right into their hands. Citing the blog of someone who doesn't seem to be any improvement over Jeff Gannon is evidence of that.
Agreed. It's been real.
Post a Comment