Tuesday, October 03, 2006

Who loves oversimplification now?

I have to say that the arguments behind the Mark Foley disclosure confound me. People who ought to know better say that Republicans who have taken contributions from Foley's funds or those of GOP leaders are somehow compromised. What's the rationale behind that? Were the checks supposed to come with a note that said "Hey, look the other way while Mark cruises hot pages?."

Folks are in high dungeon that Foley's non-sexual e-mail to a male page asking that he send a picture should have been enough to put him in irons. Personally, I think that it would have been unreasonable to think that a gay guy writing that to a male page was probably going to do more dirt, just as, if I am a teacher in Cedarburg, I probably shouldn't keep pictures of teenage girls in bikinis on my computer. But I also suspect that, had the GOP leadership attempted to do be more aggressive than they were, they'd have been accused of homophobia.

There is going to be all sorts of silliness behind this and the only way to avoid that is to insist that people make relevant distinctions and not fall into the political game of avoiding them "because no one will understand." It may well be that the GOP hierarchy has acted ignobly, but the Dems are served by ignorance and are acting accordingly.

1 comment:

amazon said...

These are sage words, Shark, and I hope you will repeat them to your allies on the right when some Dem is exposed for sordid behavior. It seems to me that the talk-radio crowd isn't very good at avoiding "all sorts of silliness" and "making relevant distinctions" when the opportunity for partisan gain presents itself.

All I can say is that thank goodness Foley isn't a liberal. I'm sure he would be cited as proof of the perversity of every liberal principle.