Who Knew Congressman Foley Was A Closeted Democrat?
October 4, 2006
At least liberals are finally exhibiting a moral compass about
something. I am sure that they'd be equally outraged if Rep. Mark Foley
were a Democrat.
The object lesson of Foley's inappropriate e-mails to male pages is
that when a Republican congressman is caught in a sex scandal, he
immediately resigns and crawls off into a hole in abject embarrassment.
Democrats get snippy.
Foley didn't claim he was the victim of a “witch hunt.” He didn't whine
that he was a put-upon “gay American.” He didn't stay in Congress and
haughtily rebuke his critics. He didn't run for re-election. He
certainly didn't claim he was “saving the Constitution.” (Although his
recent discovery that he has a drinking problem has a certain
Democratic ring to it.)
In 1983, Democratic congressman Gerry Studds was found to have sexually
propositioned House pages and actually buggered a 17-year-old male page
whom he took on a trip to Portugal. The 46-year-old Studds indignantly
attacked those who criticized him for what he called a “mutually
voluntary, private relationship between adults.”
When the House censured Studds for his sex romp with a male page,
Studds — not one to be shy about presenting his backside to a large
group of men — defiantly turned his back on the House during the vote.
He ran for re-election and was happily returned to office SIX more
times by liberal Democratic voters in his Martha's Vineyard district.
(They really liked his campaign slogan: “It's the outfit, stupid.”)
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.”
Meanwhile, Foley is hiding in a hole someplace.
No one demanded to know why the Democrat Speaker of the House, Thomas
“Tip” O'Neill, took one full decade to figure out that Studds was
propositioning male pages.
But now, the same Democrats who are incensed that Bush's National
Security Agency was listening in on al-Qaida phone calls are incensed
that Republicans were not reading a gay congressman's instant messages.
Let's run this past the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals: The suspect
sent an inappropriately friendly e-mail to a teenager — oh also, we
think he's gay. Can we spy on his instant messages? On a scale of 1 to
10, what are the odds that any court in the nation would have said: YOU
BET! Put a tail on that guy — and a credit check, too!
When Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee found unprotected
e-mails from the Democrats about their plan to oppose Miguel Estrada's
judicial nomination because he was Hispanic, Democrats erupted in rage
that their e-mails were being read. The Republican staffer responsible
was forced to resign.
But Democrats are on their high horses because Republicans in the House
did not immediately wiretap Foley's phones when they found out he was
engaging in e-mail chitchat with a former page about what the kid
wanted for his birthday.
The Democrats say the Republicans should have done all the things
Democrats won't let us do to al Qaida — solely because Foley was
rumored to be gay. Maybe we could get Democrats to support the NSA
wiretapping program if we tell them the terrorists are gay.
On Fox News' “Hannity and Colmes” Monday night, Democrat Bob Beckel
said a gay man should be kept away from male pages the same way Willie
Sutton should have been kept away from banks. “If Willie Sutton is
around some place where a bank is robbed,” Beckel said, “then you're
probably going to say, 'Willie, stay away from the robbery.'"
Hmmmm, let's search the memory bank. In July 2000, the New York Times
“ethicist” Randy Cohen advised a reader that pulling her son out of the
Cub Scouts because they exclude gay scout masters was “the ethical
thing to do.” The “ethicist” explained: “Just as one is honor bound to
quit an organization that excludes African-Americans, so you should
withdraw from scouting as long as it rejects homosexuals.”
We need to get a rulebook from the Democrats:
Boy Scouts — As gay as you want to be.
Priests — No gays!
Democrat politicians -Proud gay Americans.
Republican politicians - Presumed guilty.
White House Press Corps - No gays, unless they hate Bush.
Active Duty U.S. Military - As gay as possible.
Men Who Date Liza Minelli - Do I have to draw you a picture, Miss Thing?
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.
Talk to us Monday. Either we'll be furious that Republicans violated
the man's civil rights, or we'll be furious that they didn't.
Ann Coulter.com
|
|
