Distractions and Hypocrisy
October 5, 2006
Do you remember how many times during the Clinton years Democrats told us everyone lies about sex and that Republicans were shamefully distracting the Clinton administration by harping on White House cover-ups about sex with an intern?
Well, we have far worse distractions now being promoted by Democrats about far less important matters and during far more dangerous times.
When Clinton was president he lamented, “I just want to get back to the work of the American people.” That deserves to be echoed by Democrats today, because we need to have a genuine debate on the issues that really matter — the war against the jihadists, the economy, marriage and abortion, and other vital issues — before the November elections.
Will Democrats, if they regain control of either — or both — houses of Congress, use their newfound majority to further stifle the president’s prosecution of the war on terror? Will they de-fund our soldiers in Iraq and demand a timetable for withdrawal? Their incessant criticisms of Iraq being “the wrong war, wrong place, wrong time” imply that they would.
Likewise, would the Democrats undo the partial reform measures aimed at sealing our borders? Would they try to roll back tax cuts? The public is entitled to know what the Republicans stand for and what the Democrats stand for, and the media is supposed to be the vehicle to make sure that we do. But the media seems uninterested in these issues. Their sole focus seems to be to try to embarrass, if not emasculate, President Bush and the Republicans and return the Democrats to power.
Don’t tell me the media and the Democrats are morally outraged about any aspect of the Foley matter, because that dog just won’t hunt. They have absolutely no moral standing to complain about anyone else’s laxity over deviant sexual behavior.
You know the drill. You’ve read and heard the Democrats’ sordid track record on these matters. They not only didn’t condemn Democratic congressman Gerry Studds for his actual sex — not perverted flirting — with a page; they gave him ovations. Congressman Barney Frank remains a respected Democrat even though an aide ran a prostitution ring out of Frank’s apartment. The Democrats told us that Clinton’s defilement of the Oval Office was a private matter. They champion the advancement of the radical homosexual agenda and safeguard partial birth abortion.
“No, no, no,” they cry. This is about Republican hypocrisy. The GOP pretends to be the party of values and yet embroils itself in this salacious scandal.
But Republicans are not guilty of hypocrisy here — they immediately purged Foley when they discovered the extent of his disgraceful misconduct.
And if Speaker Dennis Hastert had dropped the axe on Foley earlier, based on what he was told about the initial e-mails, you can be sure that the ACLU, the gay lobby, and apparently indignant Democrats would have cried homophobia at the top of their lungs.
It’s the Democrats who are the hypocrites. Here they are castigating Hastert for not taking action that they would otherwise describe as homophobia.
This should be a non-scandal because it doesn’t involve the Republican Party, or in fairness, even its House leader. Based on the facts we know now, it involves Foley alone. Let’s put the brakes on this rush to judgment against Hastert until we see what facts the investigation reveals.
The real scandal is the Democratic Party. As I point out in my book “Bankrupt: The Moral and Intellectual Bankruptcy of Today’s Democratic Party” — and document in detail in their own words — the Democrats are unhinged in their Bush hatred, trying to parade under a false banner of being a “values” party themselves, and have no real political platform at all, except for opposing the Republicans on everything, most of all on the war on terror. And the real disaster would be if Nancy Pelosi becomes speaker of the House or Harry Reid becomes the Senate majority leader. Can anyone really see Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid as responsible war leaders in Congress?
Democrats have disingenuously told us they couldn’t wait to make this election a referendum on President Bush’s policies on national security and the war in Iraq. But they have done everything they could to avoid this discussion because they still have no policies of their own to offer on the war — and they have even less to offer on the economy, which is robust and booming. They will ride the Foley incident as long as they can, but eventually — sometime before the election, they’ll have to give us some answers. Too bad for them. They don’t have any.