Double Standards
The blatant double-standards we're seeing in this whole Foley saga makes my stomach turn.
Ask yourself this: if a Democrat were being accused of sexually abusing* a minor, and if the Democratic Speaker of the House would deny knowing anything about it until just now, and if the majority of Democrats would rally around said Speaker, and if liberal organizations would release statements defending him as well, what would be the rhetoric flying all over the place now? Does this sound familiar:
"It's obvious that the Democrats are more concerned about protecting the rights of a child abuser and predator then protecting the rights of our children and defending the principles on which this country stands. These left-leaning liberal groups don't care about morality; all they're interested in is keeping the Democrats in power and protecting criminals and terrorists. Are these the types of people you want leading our country??"
Make no mistake- the Republican party would call for a million investigations-- one into the accused Democrat's actions, and 999,999 into the (in)actions and alleged cover-up of the Democratic party. They would hold hearing after hearing in prime time to "get to the bottom of this" and try their damndest to villify the Democratic party for all the country to see.
Oh, and let's not forget the excuses: if the accused Democrat "went into rehab" the day after resigning and then admitted that: a) he's gay, and b) he was sexually abused by a priest when he was young, the Republicans would remind the American people: "the Democrats are trying to make excuses for this disgusting crime, but we, the [self-proclaimed] Party of Personal Responsibility will immediately call for investigations and hold those responsible for hiding these facts accoutable for their (in)actions. No one will be left untouched (no pun intended, really.) Oh, and by the way: it's obvious that only gay people are capable of doing such things. Just another reason to hate all things gay."
I'm particularly struck by the conspiracy theories that are being bandied about. The Republicans are claiming that the Democrats leaked the text of Foley's conversations as part of a well-timed plan for winning the midterm elections.
Um, does this remind you of anything or anyone in particular? How about a little unknown man named Karl Rove? If this theory is in fact true (and I wouldn't speculate one way or the other; besides, there are other conspiracy theories out there other than this one, so why waste the time?), looks like the Dems just pulled the old quarterback sneak and stole a page out of Rove's own dirty political tricks handbook. How about that for a taste of your own medicine? Pill too tough to swallow? Cry me a river, please.
* Yes, my definition of "sexual abuse" is pretty liberal here-- ok, so Foley didn't engage in any physical acts, but child predators are prosecuted even on just the words they use in chat rooms, emails, etc., to lure minors. "Sexual abuse" is abuse, whether it's physical or verbal. Please don't try to debate the semantics with me; the issue hits too close to home to even engage in such a discussion.
Ask yourself this: if a Democrat were being accused of sexually abusing* a minor, and if the Democratic Speaker of the House would deny knowing anything about it until just now, and if the majority of Democrats would rally around said Speaker, and if liberal organizations would release statements defending him as well, what would be the rhetoric flying all over the place now? Does this sound familiar:
"It's obvious that the Democrats are more concerned about protecting the rights of a child abuser and predator then protecting the rights of our children and defending the principles on which this country stands. These left-leaning liberal groups don't care about morality; all they're interested in is keeping the Democrats in power and protecting criminals and terrorists. Are these the types of people you want leading our country??"
Make no mistake- the Republican party would call for a million investigations-- one into the accused Democrat's actions, and 999,999 into the (in)actions and alleged cover-up of the Democratic party. They would hold hearing after hearing in prime time to "get to the bottom of this" and try their damndest to villify the Democratic party for all the country to see.
Oh, and let's not forget the excuses: if the accused Democrat "went into rehab" the day after resigning and then admitted that: a) he's gay, and b) he was sexually abused by a priest when he was young, the Republicans would remind the American people: "the Democrats are trying to make excuses for this disgusting crime, but we, the [self-proclaimed] Party of Personal Responsibility will immediately call for investigations and hold those responsible for hiding these facts accoutable for their (in)actions. No one will be left untouched (no pun intended, really.) Oh, and by the way: it's obvious that only gay people are capable of doing such things. Just another reason to hate all things gay."
I'm particularly struck by the conspiracy theories that are being bandied about. The Republicans are claiming that the Democrats leaked the text of Foley's conversations as part of a well-timed plan for winning the midterm elections.
Um, does this remind you of anything or anyone in particular? How about a little unknown man named Karl Rove? If this theory is in fact true (and I wouldn't speculate one way or the other; besides, there are other conspiracy theories out there other than this one, so why waste the time?), looks like the Dems just pulled the old quarterback sneak and stole a page out of Rove's own dirty political tricks handbook. How about that for a taste of your own medicine? Pill too tough to swallow? Cry me a river, please.
* Yes, my definition of "sexual abuse" is pretty liberal here-- ok, so Foley didn't engage in any physical acts, but child predators are prosecuted even on just the words they use in chat rooms, emails, etc., to lure minors. "Sexual abuse" is abuse, whether it's physical or verbal. Please don't try to debate the semantics with me; the issue hits too close to home to even engage in such a discussion.
posted by elanit | 10:48 PM
1 Comments:
I'll bite. (you knew I would ;)
First of all, I don't accept the definition of "sexual abuse" which does not include physical contact between abuser and victim. The typical terms used for unwanted verbal (or written) advances are things like "sexual harrassment." In fact, the idea of extending the concept of "sexual abuse" to include non-physical activity would be a substantive extension of the concept, and is as yet without legal precedent.
That said, it's icky as hell, and if it's not illegal, it should be.
Anyway, second, this scandal DID happen once before to Republicans and Democrats at the same time: in 1983 (I know, back when the Earth was molten), Rep Crane (R) and Rep Studds (D) both had sexual relations (physical, not verbal) with a 17-year old girl and a 17-year old boy, respectively. Both victims were Congressional pages, much as Foley's victims are/were (the facts aren't completely clear yet, hence the time-hedge). Crane resigned tearfully, Studds angrily defended his conduct, and was re-elected 6 more times.
Republicans generally resign when embroiled in sexual scandals; Democrats ususally don't. (As examples, see Pres. Clinton, Rep. Frank, etc, as compared with Rep. Livingston, and now Rep. Foley).
I personally don't think anyone who is leading a secret life belongs in a position of public trust under any circumstance: they're too vulnerable to blackmail.
It is unclear exactly what evidence the Republican leadership was shown regarding Foley's conduct, although my understanding is that it was neither the most blatant nor the most egregious. The leadership can be forgiven for not acting on insufficient evidence (hell, isn't acting on insufficient evidence one of the things the Democrats DON'T like about Republicans?) but the lack of a thorough investigation doesn't sit right with me.
Personally, I'm appalled at this Congress - the Republican members have largely sold out their constituencies and embraced the kind of corruption which was rampant in the early 80s, and their only positive attribute is how bad the Democratic opposition is. It almost makes me glad that I can't vote for any of them: I take no blame for their massive bi-partisan failures of leadership, imagination, ethics, or honesty.
Drain the swamp.
Post a Comment
<< Home