I’ve given up trying to figure out what to say about the Mark Foley situation. So I think I’ll say, “enough already.”
In all the years I’ve hosted a radio show, I don’t think I’ve ever put a moratorium on any particular subject. I like the unpredictable nature of talk radio. The fact that those little blinking lights on my phone bank will produce a caller who elicits laughter, or a profound thought, or even a spirited argument, always reminds me why I got into the business in the first place.
But the Mark Foley scandal is so out of control on the national airwaves, newspapers and internet that anything that’s said on my radio show can’t possibly benefit anyone except Democrats who desperately want to win the upcoming mid-term election.
For one thing, it’s no secret that I hope and pray that Republicans shock everyone by managing to maintain control of the House and Senate after November 7th. The Foley story is a gift that just keeps on giving to gleeful Democrats who hope that enough voters will be sickened by the story that they’ll want to vote against Republicans in a few weeks.
The scandal is so salacious that very few people are pausing long enough to consider a few facts. It is a fact that thus far, the FBI has been unable to find any instances of the disgraced ex-Congressman actually having any physical contact with Congressional pages. He apparently preferred to wait until a young man reached an age that was well beyond the age of consent before becoming physically intimate.
So where are the gay activists who would typically condemn the persecution of a gay man? After all, everyone has “piled on” over the Foley story – “he’s a degenerate, a monster, a predator, and a creep”, etc, etc, etc. – when it appears that what we really have is a closeted gay man who is attracted to younger adults. Isn’t that something that most Democrats would defend?
Oh, I forgot. This isn’t a gay Democrat like Barney Frank or the late Gerry Studds. This is a Republican. For activists, politics trumps consistency every time.
Foley has announced that a Catholic priest sexually abused him about 40 years ago. Evidently, his explanation for writing dirty messages to teenage boys is that he was abused by some priest back when Foley was a teen.
Again, gay spokesmen, where are you? Does the sexual abuse of a child lead that child to become a gay man who is attracted to younger men when he grows up? Funny, I’ve never really heard that kind of a connection before.
NYT Journalist Wonders: "Free Speech Aside" Why Would Anyone Hold A Contest to Draw Muhammed? | Katie Pavlich