More FoleyI'm not really keeping this blog to comment on political stuff. I really want it to primarily be for keeping in touch with family and friends (though, as of yet, I've released the address to very few of them. I just want there to be more than a few posts to read when people finally make there way over here). But I can never resist commenting on pure vitriolic bunk when I see it.
I guess my first mistake was actually believing something written on the Op-Ed page of the Washington Post was worth reading, but any who wish to repeat my mistake can read Eugene Robinson's anti-GOP and anti-Christian screed
here. Go ahead, I'll be here when you get back.
Here's a few excerpts for anyone who didn't want to put themselves through that particular torture:
"Let's deal with the circumstance that dares not speak its name:
How much of the Mark Foley scandal's impact is due to the fact that he's a gay
man who preyed on young boys?"
"There would still be a scandal, but I think Foley's now-acknowledged
homosexuality was crucial in turning a crisis for the party into a potential
catastrophe."
"The Republican Party has gone to such lengths to demonize homosexuality that it must pain the
leadership to reveal that such a thing as a gay Republican congressman could
even exist."
That's really interesting. According to this guy, Republicans are so anti-gay that they'll jump on any chance they can get to persecute them. Yet somehow, this bigoted and homophobic party ignored warning signs for years that one of their own was gay, and preying on teenage pages.
My, you'd think such a party would have happily exposed Foley as gay and drummed him out of Congress at the first opportunity. That'll learn 'em to stay out of
our Party!
Unfortunately for their reelection chances this Fall, Republicans didn't do that. Since that doesn't fit his view of the GOP, Robinson rationalizes that either a) they were too cynically ashamed he was gay to make it public or b) they were so incompetent that they didn't know (you almost get the feeling that he dislikes Republicans for other reasons). Conveniently, he leaves out a totally plausible and increasingly likely third option: GOP leaders knew he was inappropriately friendly, maybe even that he was gay, but didn't have any solid evidence to do anything further with it. Since that's not a course of action fitting with Robinson's view of the evil, homophobic GOP, he doesn't consider it.
Then, of course, there's this gem:
"For some people who have no base of knowledge about gayness --
and, often, whose pastors routinely denounce homosexuality from the pulpit as a
sin -- the basic idea of recruitment, without all the paranoid conspiracy
trappings, seems to explain the inexplicable."
In case you missed it, the point here is that Republicans like to ginn up ignorant, easily-led Christian voters by beating up on the gays. These Christians, in turn, have no first hand knowledge of gays, but hate them because they swallow whatever their pastor feeds them from the pulpit every Sunday. Makes sense to Robinson, anyway. True Christians obviously know enough to handpick from the Bible which sins to take seriously and which are just God spouting off without knowing what He's talking about. (It's always great when a person whose party includes voters from the poorest, most uneducated demographics in the country starts talking about how dimwitted Christian voters are.)
Not to point out the obvious, but the sole 'anti-gay' policy of the Republican Party is preserving the institution of marriage for male/female relationships only, which is what it's been since the beginning of time. My little American Heritage dictionary, published back in the antiquated days of 1994, defines marriage as "the legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife." It was only in the last ten years, when homosexuals began demanding that all 'lifelong relationships' be defined the same way, that Republicans (and President Clinton, who signed the Defense of Marriage Act), simply said 'no' to this, and thus have been forever branded 'anti-gay'.
But oh well. What can you expect from a guy who somehow turns a story about a gay Congressman who preys on underage pages into an indictment of a party he sees as anti-gay?