• Text smaller
  • Text bigger

I got a kick out of the Democratic National Committee’s hissy-fit
over co-chairwoman Loretta Sanchez’s scheduled fund-raiser at the
Playboy mansion.

Sanchez ultimately gave in to pressure from the party brass, which
threatened to remove her as a speaker at the convention this week.

“We think an event at the Playboy mansion is not the right image and
does not represent the values of our party,” explained Joe Andrews, the
chairman of the Democratic Party.

Oh really? It doesn’t represent the values of the Democrats? Why not?

Isn’t it true that the Democratic party has accepted at least
$100,000 in political contributions from Hugh and Christie Hefner in
recent years? What did the Democrats think the Hefners were buying if
not the party of Playboy values?

Furthermore, I couldn’t help but notice this story about Sanchez and
the Playboy Mansion broke the same week WorldNetDaily exploded the
latest scandal-bomb on the White House — what is being dubbed


“Porn-gate.”

Did everyone else in the media fail to see the irony between these two stories? Was anyone else surprised to see the Sanchez story get more ink and airtime than the story of the White House porn addicts?

Let me repeat some of the important details of this Porn-gate story for you in case they haven’t sunk in:

  • White House security, such as it is in the Clinton years, had to break up a cyber-porn ring involving dozens of staffers and officials inside the White House.

  • Those officials and staffers, some of whom have names you would instantly recognize, were caught downloading so many hard-core porn videos off the Internet that it accounted for most of the traffic coming into the security firewall.

  • We’re not talking about Victoria’s Secret catalog stuff here. We’re not even talking about Playboy, folks. We’re talking about barnyard animals, homosexual action and teen sex.

  • The downloaders included West Wing staff, including some senior aides to the president — but why should that surprise anyone?

  • There were no porn filters in place at the White House as of last winter when the porn sting took place — even though President Clinton and Vice President Al Gore have pushed for e-chips to block obscenity on the Web and even though Congress has had strict regulations against this for some time.

  • Can anyone fail to miss the obvious danger of blackmail from hackers and spies who got wind of the porn freaks’ activities?

  • No staffers were fired for the security violations. One self-identified “porn addict” has sought therapy and is still working there.

  • They did all this on taxpayer equipment and taxpayer time. One manager spent an average of an hour a day looking at porn during the work week and then came in on weekends for more viewing fun.

And while this story is exploding, the DNC ducks for cover by getting Sanchez to dump the Playboy Mansion fund-raiser?

Do you get the picture?

So tell me, again, Joe Andrew, why is it that you claim Playboy doesn’t represent the values of the Democratic Party, Bill Clinton and Al Gore? Are the Playboy values not hard-core enough for you? Is that just kids’ stuff? Are the real values of this White House leadership, staff and the party behind it represented by the choice of entertainment downloaded over the Internet?

I’ll tell you the real reason the Democrats vetoed Sanchez’s Playboy event. It had nothing to do with the party’s morals and values — at least not in the sense that Joe Andrew suggests. It has more to do with the dirty little secret that the party is all-but controlled by a coalition of feminists and homosexual activists — a coalition that would find the Playboy lifestyle repugnant not because of its sinfulness, but because of its ultra-hetero exploitation.

The big question is: Would the party have as much of a problem with barnyard animals and homosexual porn — or would that be in line with its quest for diversity and approval of alternate lifestyles?

  • Text smaller
  • Text bigger
Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.