Democratic strategist Bob Beckel, recently on Hannity & Colmes, Fox News, opened up several large cans of worms for Democrats. First, Mr. Beckel noted that the fact Mark Foley was gay should have raised questions in the minds of Republican House leaders when they were told of the “innocuous” e-mails he sent to pages. According to Mr. Beckel, the same Republican leadership criticized for intercepting messages from terrorists overseas should have intercepted communications because Foley was “e-mailing while gay.”
To prove his point, Mr. Beckel stated that having a gay man around boys was like letting notorious bank robber “Slick” Willie Sutton hang around banks.
Did I just hear the Democratic Party flip and land on its ear? Didn’t the ACLU, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Democratic Party (or is it the other way around?), just lose a lawsuit in the Supreme Court challenging the Boy Scouts' ban on gay Scoutmasters? I wonder which Democratic Party has the floor in the Foley fiasco?
Is it the Party of Democratic strategist Bob Beckel, who apparently feels that a gay who is friendly to boys should set off all sorts of alarms, or is it the Democratic Party of ACLU lawsuits against the Boy Scouts for excluding gays? Is it the party of the liberal movement in the Catholic Church, or the party condemning that leadership for not taking a tougher stand against gay priests? Is it the party that now seems to want to put gay teachers under a microscope, or the party that said criticism of "a brief consenting homosexual relationship"” between former Massachusetts Representative Gerry Studds and a page boy was a “witch hunt against gays.”
In the florid words of Washington Post columnist Colman McCarthy: "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."
What is that I hear, Democrats? Penetration of a minor is OK, provocation isn’t? As far as has been disclosed, Mark Foley invited pages for ice cream; Gerry Studds used liquor. When I was a teenager keeping score, taking a girl for ice cream was not even considered getting to first base. Democrats must feel that for a gay Republican, having ice cream together is a home run, and for a Democrat, buggering a page boy is only a bunt single.
So, Democrats, step up to the plate and call it. To help you, Ann Coulter has provided a handy rulebook for Democrats to judge leaders’ suitability:
- Boy Scouts: be as gay as you want
- Priests: no gays!
- Democratic politicians: proud gay Americans
- Republican politicians: presumed guilty, including all their Republican leadership
- White house press corps: no gays, unless they hate Bush
- Active duty US military: as gay as possible
To Ms. Coulter’s list I would add:
- Teachers: whatever the Teachers Union says
- Big Brothers: don’t ask, don’t tell
Are the Democrats who applauded Gerry Studds' defiance of House censure now the ones casting the first stones at Foley and at Republican leadership?
UPDATE: I added "Gerry Studds used liquor" because Democratic apologists have made a case that the page Studds seduced was 17, and the age of consent in Massachusetts was 16 at the time. I don't see how that makes any difference from a morals perspective, but Democrats are notoriously legalistic.
I would like to know if the law applied equally to boys propositioned by a superior and plied with alcohol? Also, it would seem that giving alcohol to someone under the age of 18 is and was illegal in just about every state. Then there is the issue of whether the sex was only in Massachusetts. It has been determined that Studds and the page had sex numerous times on a vacation in Europe. Is there a federal statute against interstate transport of a minor for immoral purposes?
I'll bet there is, and was.