Don't Fall for the Faux Foley Fury
By Joe Mariani (10/05/06)
In today's topsy-turvy world, perhaps the strangest thing is to see Democrats blasting Republicans for NOT gay-bashing. What is the world coming to?
Inexplicably, House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) is under attack for not preventing former Representative Mark Foley (R-FL) from contacting male pages. The Left are in their glory over this "scandal," throwing accusations of "cover-up" just weeks before a tight midterm election. The fact that no evidence of wrongdoing on Hastert's part has yet been produced, however, doesn't even slow the Democratic attacks.
It seems that a lot of people in DC knew that Foley was gay, and that he was attracted to young men. After all, the people of his district are entitled to send whatever representation they want to Congress, if they felt he got the job done for them. Political correctness prevented anyone from making a ruckus over his sexual orientation, until the Democrats suddenly discovered a sort of militant asceticism.
Hastert was informed in late 2005 that Foley had sent a page some "overly friendly" emails, and that the page's parents wanted him to stop... but didn't want a big deal made of it. The emails were a bit creepy, perhaps, but not overtly sexual. In one, Foley asked the page -- a Louisiana native whose home had survived Hurricane Katrina -- for his picture. Hastert and other Republican leaders quietly asked Foley to cease and desist, and Foley agreed. Crisis averted, problem solved... right?
Not in an election year. Amazing, isn't it, that the story broke when it was just too late for the Republican party to remove Foley's name from the ballot?
Out of nowhere, it seems, a series of extremely salacious instant messages appeared, in which Foley and others openly discussed explicitly sexual matters. Actually, it wasn't nowhere -- copies of the "friendly" emails were first sent to the FBI and the St. Petersburg Times by the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a group funded by the America-hating Leftist multi-billionaire George Soros. When neither the FBI nor the media saw anything actionable in the emails, they appeared on a newly-created web site that had almost no traffic. When ABC picked up the story at the insistence of Foley's opponent, the far more disturbing IMs suddenly made their appearance.
Foley immediately resigned when the story broke, in sharp contrast to Democrats who have been caught in scandals. Representative Gerry Studds (D-MA), for instance, actually slept with at least one male page. He turned his back on then-House Speaker Tip O'Neill (R-MA) in disrespect as he was being censured for his behavior, which earned him a standing ovation from fellow Democrats. Studds was re-elected five more times before he retired.
When Foley resigned, Democrats like Representative Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) -- who expects to take Hastert's job after the upcoming elections -- immediately demanded that Hastert resign as well, and that the entire Republican leadership be investigated. They insist that Hastert knew of "inappropriate contacts" between Foley and "children," and did nothing -- in fact, many accused him of deliberately covering up for Foley, without a shred of evidence to back that accusation. Yet in the cutthroat world of Democratic smear campaigns, evidence is a four-letter word, and outrage trumps logic.
It's perfectly understandable that Conservatives and most Republicans would be outraged by Foley's grossly immoral -- even disgusting -- behavior. However, it's almost impossible to understand why the Left would be upset. How could those who champion "alternate lifestyles" and belittle those who dare judge others by religious or moral standards be dismayed by some dirty text messages? Whatever happened to all the champions of the "right to privacy" and the supporters of NAMBLA's (the North American Man-Boy Love Association) right to "free speech?" Where are those who were outraged by the Boy Scouts' refusal to allow gay Scoutmasters? In short, it's a calculated outrage manufactured for political purposes. Do they expect us to believe that they condemn Foley's actions, which were not, after all, even strictly illegal?
As far as the law goes, 16-year-old pages are over the age of consent in DC (and many states) -- thanks to Left-wing activists who want to drive the age of consent even lower. There is no law against sodomy -- again, thanks to Left-wing activists who have worked to "mainstream" alternate lifestyles, claiming that a "right to privacy" forbids the government from interfering in the bedroom activities of two consenting adults. Of course, instant messages and emails are not the same as sexual contact, so statutes against sodomy and age of consent laws wouldn't even apply unless it can be proved that Foley had actual sexual contact with pages. And -- again, thanks to the Left -- we know that oral sex doesn't count as sex, either.
What we see here is the difference between illegal and immoral behavior. Foley's actions were not strictly illegal, but were certainly stomach-churningly immoral -- but only to those who don't shy away from making moral judgments. In other words: what business do those on the Left have condemning Foley for doing whatever he wanted with whomever he wanted, as long as all involved were over the age of consent? Isn't that what the Left has been telling us all these years? Who are these new Puritans that attack Republicans for not denouncing Foley when they first learned of his sexual tendencies? It's all a political game designed to split the Republicans just a month before a crucial election. And, sadly, it seems to be working.
Which brings us back to Hastert. "No one in the leadership, including Speaker Hastert, had any knowledge of the warped and sexually explicit instant messages that were revealed by ABC News last Friday," said House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-OH). Upon being informed of Foley's "overly friendly" -- but in no way sexual -- emails to a page, what should he have done? Censure Foley on the House floor for being a homosexual? Launch a major investigation into Foley's personal life, issuing a subpoena to every page with whom Foley had ever spoken, just in case Foley had done something illegal? A full-blown witch hunt is not the "proper" response to every questionable activity on Capitol Hill. Hastert cannot reasonably be held to account for Foley's actions.
With this year's election hanging in the balance, the Democrats will use any and every dirty campaign tactic to regain power. One can only hope that the voters will get sick of the underhanded trickery, and decide to send the Democrats a message. More than likely, though, the negative campaigns will suppress the so-called "values voters" -- mostly social Conservatives and religious Republicans -- by causing them to stay away from the polls in disgust. If that happens, expect to see more dirty campaigning in the future... as rewarding bad behavior only results in more bad behavior.
http://guardian.blogdrive.com/archive/cm-10_cy-2006_m-10_d-05_y-2006_o-0.html
(Printer friendly version) Email: Joe Mariani
