Liberal sexual affairs 101
I swore I would stay away from this one since it was all over the place, but I can hold out no longer. The raging hypocrisy of the liberal media and Democratic elite is just about as sick as the Foley IMs to under-age pages.
I open my email this morning and find this headline in one of my political newsletters...Republicans struggle on how to spin Foley case. As a Republican, I think it's time I point out there is no spin, nor struggle in this case.
Michelle Malkin has some good stuff on the details. Townhall Blog has updated coverage and HotAir has video from the Hastert news conference.
I do try to avoid some of these big ever-changing issues because of time constraints. But after watching the countless reports on the evening news and getting emails with the above headline, I couldn't hold my silence. What the former Rep. Foley did while in office was wrong. There is no spin about that. But what Democrats are doing by politicizing the issue is just as wrong.
Here's a short history lesson for you about this issue and other sources of corruption in the political world.
In July of 1983, a story broke about the sexual affairs with House pages by Democratic Reps. Daniel Crane and Gerry Studds. It turns out Studds not only had sex with a 17-year-old page but had propositioned many more. Studds ran for re-election and was proudly returned to office six more times by liberal voters in his district.
It should also be noted, there was absolutely no speculation by Republicans and the media over whether Speaker Tip O'Neill should resign amid the scandal.
As Ann Coulter points out...The 46-year-old Studds indignantly attacked those who criticized him for what he called a "mutually voluntary, private relationship between adults."
She goes on with details of how the media denounced critics as "against gays" and defended the actions of Studds - actions that were clearly more 'of the act' so to speak...
| Washington Post columnist Colman McCarthy referred to Studds' affair with a teenage page as "a brief consenting homosexual relationship" and denounced Studds' detractors for engaging in a "witch-hunt" against gays: "New England witch trials belong to the past, or so it is thought. This summer on Cape Cod, the reputation of Rep. Gerry Studds was burned at the stake by a large number of his constituents determined to torch the congressman for his private life." |
Fast forward to June 6, 1994 when Congressman Mel Reynolds engaged in explicit phone conversations with 16-year-old "campaign worker," Beverly T. Heard. A tape of the explicit conversation was entered as evidence in People v. Melvin Reynolds, a trial that ended in Reynolds' conviction. Reynolds was sentenced to several years in federal prison.
Debbie Schlussel points out some of the details from these conversations...
| Various underwear choices and sex acts are graphically described by Reynolds to his youthful female target. This includes a planned threesome with a 15-year-old Catholic schoolgirl named Theresa. Awestruck with the prospect, Reynolds rhetorically asks, "Did I win the Lotto?" |
How did the left respond? In 2001 Bill Clinton pardoned ex-Congressman Mel Reynolds. And that wasn't even good enough... Reynolds was hired by Rev. Jesse Jackson's Operation PUSH to decrease the number of young blacks going to prison. Guess his skills with the young ladies would help his street cred.
Now fast forward to our current scandal. Last Friday, Rep. Mark Foley resigned from Congress amid questions about e-mails to a teen House page. We're not talking about secret IMs that were released a few days later. We're talking about emails that simply asked questions like "what do you want for your birthday?"
There isn't one person who will condone the actions of Foley. But based on the evidence that had been released by the page's family, the only information available to Republican leadership was overly friendly emails. And this information was enough for the FBI to dismiss any wrongdoing. So for the left to go on the attack of Republicans for not doing enough is not only factually wrong, but downright looney based on the way they've handled similar scandals within their own party.
Yes, the IM messages are bad. Yes, Foley resigned in embarrassment. But bring yourselves back into reality here folks. We're talking about a gay man's interest in teenage boys. If I had a nickel for every time a guy had interest in, commented on, dreamt about or ogled a teenager, I'd be wealthier than George Soros.
The story here is the manner in which these cases were handled after they went public. The Republican resigns office and there's a mass investigation. The Democrat gets re-elected six times, pardoned, and given a lucrative job. You tell me which is a bigger scandal!
I'll leave you with this final quote from Ann Coulter's latest column...
| But now, the same Democrats who are incensed that Bush's National Security Agency was listening in on al Qaeda phone calls are incensed that Republicans were not reading a gay congressman's instant messages. This is the very definition of political opportunism. If Republicans had decided to spy on Foley for sending overly friendly e-mails to pages, Democrats would have been screaming about a Republican witch-hunt against gays. But if they don't, they're enabling a sexual predator. |
Exactly!