October 3, 2006

a little more intolerance needed, perhaps?

from OpinionJournal...

...And Mr. Hastert was informed that fellow Illinois Republican John Shimkus--who oversees the page program as part of a six-member board--spoke privately with Mr. Foley, who explained that the email was innocent.

What next was Mr. Hastert supposed to do with an elected Congressman? Assume that Mr. Foley was a potential sexual predator and bar him from having any private communication with pages? Refer him to the Ethics Committee? In retrospect, barring contact with pages would have been wise.

But in today's politically correct culture, it's easy to understand how senior Republicans might well have decided they had no grounds to doubt Mr. Foley merely because he was gay and a little too friendly in emails. Some of those liberals now shouting the loudest for Mr. Hastert's head are the same voices who tell us that the larger society must be tolerant of private lifestyle choices, and certainly must never leap to conclusions about gay men and young boys. Are these Democratic critics of Mr. Hastert saying that they now have more sympathy for the Boy Scouts' decision to ban gay scoutmasters? Where's Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi on that one?...

Dems must be thrilled that they can campaign on something other than their non-existent policies or philosophy, but still, the ironies here are just amazing...

Perhaps the Republican House leadership should introduce a resolution expressing the House's regret for tolerating homosexual predators such as Reps Foley and Studds and Frank, and expressing support for organizations, like the Boy Scouts of America, that are working to prevent such lamentable occurrences...

Posted by John Weidner at October 3, 2006 7:29 AM
Weblog by John Weidner