So there is a really interesting Washington Post story today on how Democrats survive sex scandals but Republicans don't.
I would say Dems "get away with it" but public humiliation is pretty much a given. But what happens is that Republicans lose their jobs and Democrats don't. Now with Foley I think the creep factor would have done in a Democrat just as fast, but a Republican pol doing the classic cheating on his wife goes down while a Dem seems to survive. Clinton is only the biggest example.
It really does seem like the Democrats just represent a kinder, more forgiving Nation. A Nation that just isn't as hung up on sex. Kinda like France.
UPDATE:I like Tyler's point that Foley isn't a pedophile. Matt Y makes an ever better case, mainly by strategically deploying a photo of Scarlett Johansson. Foley is some sort of ill defined creep. Predatory, very condemable, very sleazy, but not really pedophilia. Really this is more a definitional quible.
Resume the moral condination!
3 comments:
Yeah, but lets look at the current sex scandel. Foley is not "naughty" (the Snow-coated quote) but a damn pedafile: the kid is 16!
The article has lots of other good sex scandels and comparisons and it does have a point as to why Reps can't have scandelous sex: if you set yourself up to be the watchdog of America's morals and you get caughts in "immoral" behavior, you are totally f*#ked. But Dems rarely play the morality card, so they can just apologize and move on.
I just love that it's the media's fault Reps get into so much trouble, as Chuck Todd suggests [here's another thought, whenever a Rep gets in trouble, why is it always the media's fault?]. What is Todd thinking, that ABC made Foley write dirty IM's to underage boys? Or maybe Todd's pissed because ABC did their job for once by investigating the chairman on the committee to protect children from exploitation? (Especially after the FBI and the GOP were so nice about ignoring the issue.)
But Reps have had a couple of REALLY bad sex scandals. I particularly like Todd's complaints about the media's handling of the Ryan case: "What's amazing is that his candidacy hit the wall not because he had sex, but because he was thinking about having sex," says Todd. I think when you force your wife to go with you to your favorite sex clubs and harass her to have sex with you in front of other people to the point that she divorces your ass and mentions it in the divorce settlement, you may have passed just "thinking about having sex."
I'm going to have to disagree with Erin about calling Foley a pedophille.
A pedophille is attracted to under age, pre-pubescent childeren.
There are a lot of good looking 16 and 17 year old girls that many men of differen ages would find attractive. Maybe this is wrong, but someone having inappropriate affection for a 6 or 7 could potentially be called a pedophille. A 23 yr. old guy, for example, trying to get with a 16-17 year old girl isn't an act of pedophillia. The same goes for a 23 yr. old woman persuing a 16 guy. Not sure what you would call him/her, but "pedophille" just isn't entirely accurate. I know the situation is different because its an older man and a male teenageer, but still...Yes what Foley did was still wrong, but to give him that label makes pedophilles look less sick and dangerous. A special level of hell exists for those shit heads who molest little kids. Don't lump those criminals and the acts they committ with a gay guy who has deep seeded emotional and psychological issues.
Foley is a freak, a deviant, certainly a criminal and definately a homosexual, but let's back off on the pedophille label...
So, for the most part, I actually agree with Tyler. The man clearly has some ethical issues, but calling him a pedophile goes a little too far. A 16 or 17 year old looks and acts in most cases like an adult, not a child. While it's clear that Foley is an older man who abused his position of power to get what he wanted, calling his victims children and calling him a pedophile stretches the definition of pedophile into something altogether less heinous and frightening than it really is.
The issue, as far as I can see between Dems and Republicans is more about the fact that Dems rarely use character to win their offices. They use issues and other sometimes sleazy tactics, but it's rarely about their lives being moral blue prints for the rest of us. Republicans, however frequently campaign using the fine upstanding family man cliche. So, when they're busted being simply human after being put on pedastals it's harder to excuse it away.
Besides, Republicans are never going to forgive one of their leaders for being queer. They can handle their leaders slowly stripping away their constitutional rights and torturing people, but the idea of a Republican who indulges in the love that dare not speak its name scares the crap out of them.
Post a Comment