Scouts reference in Ann Coulter Commentary

[oldsm]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucac/20061005/cm_ucac/

WHO KNEW CONGRESSMAN FOLEY WAS A CLOSETED DEMOCRAT?

Wed Oct 4, 8:03 PM ET

 

At least liberals are finally exhibiting a moral compass about something. I am sure that they'd be equally outraged if Rep. Mark Foley (news, bio, voting record) were a Democrat.

 

The object lesson of Foley's inappropriate e-mails to male pages is that when a Republican congressman is caught in a sex scandal, he immediately resigns and crawls off into a hole in abject embarrassment. Democrats get snippy.

 

Foley didn't claim he was the victim of a "witch-hunt." He didn't whine that he was a put-upon "gay American." He didn't stay in Congress and haughtily rebuke his critics. He didn't run for re-election. He certainly didn't claim he was "saving the Constitution." (Although his recent discovery that he has a drinking problem has a certain Democratic ring to it.)

 

In 1983, Democratic congressman Gerry Studds was found to have sexually propositioned House pages and actually buggered a 17-year-old male page whom he took on a trip to Portugal. The 46-year-old Studds indignantly attacked those who criticized him for what he called a "mutually voluntary, private relationship between adults."

 

When the House censured Studds for his sex romp with a male page, Studds -- not one to be shy about presenting his backside to a large group of men -- defiantly turned his back on the House during the vote. He ran for re-election and was happily returned to office five more times by liberal Democratic voters in his Martha's Vineyard district. (They really liked his campaign slogan: "It's the outfit, stupid.")

 

Washington Post columnist Colman McCarthy referred to Studds' affair with a teenage page as "a brief consenting homosexual relationship" and denounced Studds' detractors for engaging in a "witch-hunt" against gays: "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."

 

Meanwhile, Foley is hiding in a hole someplace.

 

No one demanded to know why the Democratic speaker of the House, Thomas "Tip" O'Neill, took one full decade to figure out that Studds was propositioning male pages.

 

But now, the same Democrats who are incensed that Bush's National Security Agency was listening in on al-Qaida phone calls are incensed that Republicans were not reading a gay congressman's instant messages.

 

Let's run this past the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals: The suspect sent an inappropriately friendly e-mail to a teenager -- oh also, we think he's gay. Can we spy on his instant messages? On a scale of 1 to 10, what are the odds that any court in the nation would have said: YOU BET! Put a tail on that guy -- and a credit check, too!

 

When Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee found unprotected e-mails from the Democrats about their plan to oppose Miguel Estrada's judicial nomination because he was Hispanic, Democrats erupted in rage that their e-mails were being read. The Republican staffer responsible was forced to resign.

 

But Democrats are on their high horses because Republicans in the House did not immediately wiretap Foley's phones when they found out he was engaging in e-mail chitchat with a former page about what the kid wanted for his birthday.

 

The Democrats say the Republicans should have done all the things Democrats won't let us do to al-Qaida -- solely because Foley was rumored to be gay. Maybe we could get Democrats to support the NSA wiretapping program if we tell them the terrorists are gay.

 

On Fox News' "Hannity and Colmes" Monday night, Democrat Bob Beckel said a gay man should be kept away from male pages the same way Willie Sutton should have been kept away from banks. "If Willie Sutton is around some place where a bank is robbed," Beckel said, "then you're probably going to say, 'Willie, stay away from the robbery.'"

 

Hmmmm, let's search the memory bank. In July 2000, the New York Times "ethicist" Randy Cohen advised a reader that pulling her son out of the Cub Scouts because they exclude gay scoutmasters was "the ethical thing to do." The "ethicist" explained: "Just as one is honor bound to quit an organization that excludes African-Americans, so you should withdraw from scouting as long as it rejects homosexuals."

 

We need to get a rulebook from the Democrats:

 

# Boy Scouts: As gay as you want to be.

 

# Priests: No gays!

 

# Democratic politicians: Proud gay Americans.

 

# Republican politicians: Presumed guilty.

 

# White House press corps: No gays, unless they hate Bush.

 

# Active-duty U.S. military: As gay as possible.

 

# Men who date Liza Minelli: Do I have to draw you a picture, Miss Thing?

 

This is the very definition of political opportunism. If Republicans had decided to spy on Foley for sending overly friendly e-mails to pages, Democrats would have been screaming about a Republican witch-hunt against gays. But if they don't, they're enabling a sexual predator.

 

Talk to us Monday. Either we'll be furious that Republicans violated the man's civil rights, or we'll be furious that they didn't.

[packsaddle]

I can't get the link to work. Need to check it.

 

[Hunt]

This idea that the Republicans laid off of Foley because they didn't want to be accused of gay-bashing is about the funniest thing I've heard in a while. For Anne Coulter to raise it in a column which itself is full of gay-bashing is even funnier. (Seeing a person as crude and nasty as her talk about morals perplexes me, but I don't find that part of it funny.)

Just for context, read this editorial by Joe Califano, who was hired by the House to investigate the page scandal in the 1980s:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/03/AR2006100301109.html

It should also be added that Studds' misconduct--gross as it was--happened in 1973 and wasn't illegal. It was uncovered--ten years after it happened--by an investigation begun by the Democratic leadership. Should the House have expelled him rather than just censuring him? Maybe. Do you think the Republican House would have expelled Foley if he had refused to resign? Who knows?

Side note: BSA's website says that Foley was a volunteer adult leader, but I haven't seen anything else about that.

 

[GernBlansten]

Ann lost me when she advocated converting all Muslims to Christianity and killing their leaders.

 

[packsaddle]

Still can't make the link. Oh well, I get its essence.

But let's focus on what's really important. Sure Ann is all of those things. But take away that warped brain and all its prejudice and hate, close that uncontrollable mouth likely to say anything, and what do you have left? Let's face it...she's hot!

[yellow_hammer]

Gernblanston,

 

"Ann lost me when she advocated converting all Muslims to Christianity and killing their leaders."

 

Not likely. I've seen your stand on issues on this site and I know Ann Coulter's. Surely she lost you somewhere in the first paragraph she ever wrote for publication.

 

Even the White House has distanced themselves from Ann Coulter. Hard truths are hard to take.

 

But about where she lost you... No Christian who truly believes could think that it would not be a good thing for a Muslim to convert. And aren't we already spending billions to kill some of their leaders? The same people who are trying to kill American civilians. I don't see the problem with her statement unless there is some context that makes it worse.

 

[GernBlansten]

I guess Ann is just trying to do her part to win the hearts and minds of her enemies.

 

Hot? I can't get past the Adam's Apple.

[scoutingagain]

"And aren't we already spending billions to kill some of their(Muslim)leaders? The same people who are trying to kill American civilians. "

 

I thought terrorists were trying to kill us, and we were trying to kill terrorists and their leaders. A dare say the few Muslims I know are not trying kill anyone. I hope we are not spending billions of dollars to try to kill them.

 

SA

[mmhardy]

The freak Coulter is a lier and she is on her way to eternal damnation. I prey for her wretched soul every day...

[packsaddle]

Gern, are you suggesting, perhaps, that Barr bodies are absent?

Yes, of course! Those of us who possess the unassailable truth must convert the rest of you who are ignorant, mistaken, and wrong...and then we must kill your leaders. God is on our side, after all.

 

Is one's arrogance directly proportional to the strength of one's beliefs? It seems to work that way, especially with religious faith. I wonder if there is a correlation with ignorance as well. H'mmmm

[SR540Beaver]

yellow_hammer: "Hard truths are hard to take."

 

Did you actually type that in reference to Coulter with a straight face? I consider myself conservative and my eyes will NEVER, EVER, NEVER read any of the tripe she produces. Conservatives should be as ashamed of Coulter as liberals should be of Michael Moore. Both of them are laughing all the way to the bank and are just opposite sides of the same coin.

[fgoodwin]

Try this:

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucac/20061004/cm_ucac/whoknewcongressmanfoleywasacloseteddemocrat

 

http://tinyurl.com/qfq7l

[Hunt]

"when a Republican congressman is caught in a sex scandal, he immediately resigns and crawls off into a hole in abject embarrassment"

 

Coulter doesn't mention that a Republican Congressman, Dan Crane, was censured at the same time as Gerry Studds--Crane admitted having sex with a 17-year-old female page. However, he didn't resign--he ran for re-election, and was defeated.

[SWScouter]

Mmhardy,

 

Do you really prey for her wretched soul, or did you mean pray?

[Gonzo1]

Isn't it unfair that if a republican is involved in a sex scandal, the media and democrats will scrutinize every aspect of it and crucify the republican. But, when a democrat is involoved in a sex scandal, the media and democrats tell us that the affair is a private matter between consenting adults.

 

Hmmm.