<< GROUP ORGANISED ~ MAIN ~ GLOBAL CABIFATE >>

SCANDALS RELATIVE

Noting Charles Krauthammer’s views on the Foley debacle, J.F. Beck observes: “Sex scandals are a big deal for Republicans; for Democrats they’re business as usual.”

Posted by Tim B. on 10/08/2006 at 02:05 PM
  1. The Democrats never had, never have, never will have a sex scandal. Why? Higher moral plane? No, at any level, they have no balls. Moreover, they are still trying to figure out what is meant by “is” and “I’ve never had sex with that [Momica Lewinsky]woman”.

    Posted by stats on 2006 10 08 at 02:19 PM • permalink

  2. Now if Foley had only married that 17 year old boy, he would have behaved in a way totally approved of by Democrats. [They would have approved even if the boy had not received parental approval. After all, it’s OK with them if under age girls get abortions without parental approval, or without parents even being informed.]

    Posted by stats on 2006 10 08 at 02:22 PM • permalink

  3. I want to know, nay, I demand to know why this news is coming out now.  If the Democrats sat on this, for political advantage, to obtain an October surprise, well then heads must roll.

    I want their explanation on my desk by morning.  Say, 9 am.  Not any sooner.  I read Tim Blair’s blog and the Wall Street Journal before then.

    Posted by wronwright on 2006 10 08 at 02:27 PM • permalink

  4. Did I say “heads must roll”?  Oh yes, I see now I did.  Ok.  Sorry.

    Posted by wronwright on 2006 10 08 at 02:28 PM • permalink

  5. You people simply don’t understand the nuance!  Republicans insist on standing by their principles, and the Democrats won’t stand by something they don’t have.

    Posted by RebeccaH on 2006 10 08 at 02:42 PM • permalink

  6. ...the Democrats won’t stand by something they don’t have.

    Like a spine.

    Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 10 08 at 02:47 PM • permalink

  7. Well, see, virtual sex with a kid who’s of legal age is SO unlikely.  No teenager in the entire US would EVER do such a thing, let alone even HEAR of such a thing!

    And Foley resigned and left town?  How dare he...um...again, I have no point.

    Posted by ushie on 2006 10 08 at 03:01 PM • permalink

  8. “Sex scandals are a big deal for Republicans; for Democrats they’re business as usual.”

    That because the only sin Democrats recognize is hypocrisy. And even then, only in others.

    Posted by Dave S. on 2006 10 08 at 04:41 PM • permalink

  9. It used to be the joke that British Labour had financial scandals and the Tories had sex scandals.  You have scandals about whatever you’re repressed about.

    The Democrats typically don’t parade themselves as Guardians of The (Sexual) Moral Order.  Republicans do.  As coverups and hypocrisy are the real bite of scandals, Republican sex scandals operate differently to Democrat sex scandals.

    And it doesn’t work trying to turn a Democrat sex scandal into a Republican sex scandal (hence the Republicans’ failure over Bill and Monica).  Or vice versa.

    Posted by Lorenzo on 2006 10 08 at 05:17 PM • permalink

  10. So, Lorenzo, we can expect a huge outcry over Congresscritter Jefferson ("Cold Cash"), D. LA, any time now in the MSM?  Surely as bad as the one over Duke Cunningham?

    Posted by JorgXMcKie on 2006 10 08 at 06:06 PM • permalink

  11. Let’s see, Lorenzo, if I can make some sense of your nonsense. Bill Clinton, holding the highest office of the land with the United States under threat, as he admits, from Mulsim loonies, has sex with an intern
    (interns are often the same age as pages) in his office, and with some other females around town in Little Rock, lies about it, then commits perjury (for which he lost his right to plead cases), which is, you might not know this, considered a serious crime, and yet he still remains a hero of the Dhimmos. This you call a failure on the part of Republicans???? And do you think the reason Clinton went wild was because he was repressed? You don’t make sense on other issues you try to raise, like the Dhimmis don’t parade themselves as the Guardians of the Sexual Moral Order. Hey, whose urging Gay Marriage (see Kerry and Swim Master lush Kennedy, both from Mass.) and defaming those who oppose it as bigots? Which party fights for the protection of pedophiles once they’ve served their time, which party advocates condums be given to teen agers in school, which party wants to protect teen agers from their parents when the teens decide to have an abortion, on and on? This party certainly considers itself to be Guardians of a Sexual Moral Order, twisted as many see it.

    Posted by stats on 2006 10 08 at 07:54 PM • permalink

  12. The Democrats typically don’t parade themselves as Guardians of The (Sexual) Moral Order.

    Unless it’s time for the bi-annual “let’s pretend we’re good, moral, Christian people so the Bible Belt yokels with Confederate flags on their pickups don’t totally desert our party” song and dance.

    Posted by PW on 2006 10 08 at 08:41 PM • permalink

  13. Steyn weighs in:

    It’s a good basic rule of thumb that no matter how bad a scandal is, the political class’ response will be worse, largely hysterical and lacking any sense of proportion. But, even by those minimal expectations, this last week has been unbecoming for a serious nation. In London, sex scandals come along every other week. You name it, British parliamentarians do it: three-in-a-bed, auto-erotic asphyxiation, gay teen flagellation, getting your toes sucked while wearing the soccer kit of Chelsea Football Club. But at least at Westminster, sex scandals require actual sex. That the governing party of the world’s only superpower could be felled by one creepy pervert’s masturbatory e-mails and IMs is an event historians will marvel at. Granted that the Roman Empire in its death throes got hung up on gay sex, the American hyperpower seems set to be the first to collapse over gay non-sex.
    Posted by 68W40 on 2006 10 08 at 09:35 PM • permalink

  14. Oooooooo! Did someone mention hypocrisy ?

    Posted by paco on 2006 10 08 at 09:57 PM • permalink

  15. So, Lorenzo, we can expect a huge outcry over Congresscritter Jefferson ("Cold Cash"), D. LA, any time now in the MSM?

    Hell, even the Republicans covered for him.

    Posted by Dave S. on 2006 10 08 at 10:17 PM • permalink

  16. Tim tam, are you married with kids..........?

    Posted by 1.618 on 2006 10 08 at 10:39 PM • permalink

  17. Lorenzo

    It has nothing to do with Republican claims to be moral guardians.  It has everything to do with media bias.  The media is amoral.  They only see news through the prism of political power.

    A classic example of this was the drunken physical assault of Senator Jeanne Ferris by left-wing Senator Andrew Bartlett (otherwise known as Andrew Bartltweet) on the floor of the Australian Senate chamber.  The silence from Left field was deafening.  Bartlett did not resign his post.  One could only begin to imagine the faux outrage and gnashing of teeth which would result from say, Tony Abbott man-handling Senator Stott-Despoja.

    Posted by murph on 2006 10 09 at 07:55 AM • permalink

  18. #17 at least with the mad monk, crazed urban crusader even though he is, it would be yer actual manhandling.  with bartless it’s more yer erm-like-i’m-a-bloke-an-all-
    but-i-um-respect-
    girlies-an-the-differently-
    gendered-an-oopsie-i-seem-to-be-
    a-wee-bit-tipsy-handling

    Posted by KK on 2006 10 09 at 08:09 AM • permalink

  19. how about “transvestite-vampire-handling”?

    Posted by murph on 2006 10 09 at 08:21 AM • permalink

  20. #14, Paco, the most disturbing part of that article was not about ManBoy love.  It was the part about Will Geer, grampa from The Waltons.

    I have to go hide under the bed now.

    Posted by ushie on 2006 10 09 at 12:51 PM • permalink

  21. Page 1 of 1 pages

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.

Members:
Login | Register | Member List

Please note: you must use a real email address to register. You will be sent an account activation email. Clicking on the url in the email will automatically activate your account. Until you do so your account will be held in the "pending" list and you won't be able to log in. All accounts that are "pending" for more than one week will be deleted.