 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| 
|
Buy the Book
|
Brainless: The Lies and Lunacy of Ann Coulter Sunday, October 08, 2006 Us vs. Dem The Mark Foley scandal is undeniably sleazy. On this, surely, we all agree. What the former Republican congressman from Florida admits to having done is contemptible, corrosive and, likely, criminal. And so now the debate turns to what House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) knew and when he knew it -- and how that will and should affect his political future. I'll leave that to others. Instead, I remain focused on Fox News's "accidental" identification of Foley as a Democrat and the headline on Ann Coulter's Oct. 4 column (as seen on her Web site): "Who Knew Congressman Foley Was a Closeted Democrat?" I know, I know -- mistakes happen, and maybe Fox didn't intentionally tag Foley as a Democrat (though an immediate and sincere on-air acknowledgement of the error might have helped everyone believe that). But here's one guarantee: Ann's headline is nothing but an intentional effort to drag the left into what even Pat Buchanan -- PAT BUCHANAN, PEOPLE! -- has said is a purely Republican scandal. In typically Coulterian fashion, her argument bascially consists of an inflammatory headline and the dredging up of a decades-old "Democratic" scandal -- in this case, 1983 and Massachusetts Democratic Congressman Gerry Studds. No, that's not a typo -- the 1983 above is accurate. And the need for quotation marks around "Democratic" will soon be apparent. How the admittedly lowdown, dirty, rotten Studds affair is relevant to the fix Foley finds himself in is a mystery to me. But I understand the diversionary tactic. Still, what really gets me is the absence of any mention of the involvement in the same scandal of Daniel Bever Crane, then the Republican representative from Cook County, Illinois. In short, it's pretty clear that keeping Crane's name out of it is yet another in the litany of lies of omission that Ann and her ilk spew. The fact is, both Studds and Crane were censured by Congress after admitting to affairs with 17-year-old pages. The difference, of course, is that in Studds's case, the page was male, while Crane had sex with a girl. Now, sex with a minor is sex with a minor. Unless, of course, you're a bigot -- in which case it's OK to "bugger" (Ann's word -- and one that she clearly uses to slyly display her unspoken homophobia) a child of the opposite gender, but a crime against man and nature to do so to someone with the same chromosomal pairs. In any case, throwing Studds at us (so to speak) is a move designed to pull us away from Foley's stink. Don't let it. 8 Comments:Previous Posts
Powered by
|
Uhh, Joe, the difference was that Crane was abandoned by the Republicans and lost his next election. Stutts flouted the House as he was being censured and ran successfully for congress five more times. The Coulter article was comparing Democrat and Republican reactions to homosexual scandals in Congress. Crane was not gay so he doesn't figure into the comparison. If his response is assess we find he behaved like Foley and admitted his wrong doing and was not supported by his fellow Republicans.
This is not that difficult a topic to understand. Perhaps you should read Coulter's essays more slowly, or get someone to help you.
Maguire, you doofus, the difference is that Crane abjectly apologized on the House floor, was hung out to dry by the national Republican Party and consequently lost his next election. Studds told the House to go to hell, turned his back when they read the motion of censure, was fully supported by the Democratic Party and consequently won re-election until he retired.
In other words, both men erred, but in one case -- and in the Foley case today -- the responsible leaders of the party showed him the door. In the other case, the "responsible" leaders of the party acted like bishops told about a priest fondling boys. Oooo, must be a one-time thing, he's too valuable to be let go, let's just overlook it this time....
There isn't much difference between Foley and Studds. But there's a huge difference between the Democratic party's treatment of Studds and the Republican party's treatment of Foley. Voters will be remembering that this fall. I'd say any Democrats with brains would probably want to STFU about Foley right about now.
How could you misconstrue Anne Coulter's Foley column as trying to convince or confuse anyone about Foley's political affiliation?
Do suffer from a complete absence of the humor gene or is it just a simple reading comprehension deficiency?
Translation: Democrats' double standards are bizarre in many cases, demonstrated in this case by Foley/Studds, and their expectations of responsibility of the respective Speakers. It's transparent political mudslinging, a desperate attempt to grab political power they can't get on merit.
The difference is clear. Dems tut-tutted Studds, and turned into Torquemada over Foley. Observers discount the "it happened so long ago" response because party attitudes have proven resilient.
This newfound Dem Puritanism smells of partisan hypocrisy to anyone who's not a politico. That could be a problem next month.
Well done Fellows, I guess this "Brainless" and Now "Jobless" Moron will think Twice before trying to Pull the Wool over eyes of those that Know again... May his book Flounder as his Career has...
Tins...
I want 'tinstaafl' to explain his rationale for usage of capital letters.
Of course there's a difference between Studds and Foley. Studds had an illicit and unethical affair with one page of legal age in Washington, D.C. Foley had an endless string of communications that, under the laws he himself sponsored, qualify him as a child predator, with an untold number of pages for anywhere from six to eleven years.
Studds was censured because what he did was unethical. Foley's actions are not comparable and the only reason Studds is brought up is because of the involvement of pages.
Another difference is that Studds actually SCREWED the page and Foley didn't. Studds took the page on a vacation to Morocco where he could SCREW him without violation United States laws. Foley didn't even touch anyone, just sent out his pathetic messages.