Don't get me started, again, on the Mark Foley scandal.
I'd like to put it behind me.
I'd like to move on.
I'd like to get about the business of the people of the United States.
But I just have a few more thoughts to share.
I find myself waking up in the middle of the night thinking about new angles on this twisted story.
Like this one: Obviously, this was a set-up, right? I mean, someone had these IMs. Someone had them for a long time. Someone knew what Foley was doing – that he was victimizing kids in the Capitol. And that someone turned over the evidence, not to the FBI, not to the Capitol Police, not to the Justice Department, but to ABC News.
These IMs were old. That means this someone who had them actually, in a way, was like an accomplice to Foley. He or she or it enabled Foley to continue doing what he was doing with the kids.
Now, does that strike you as someone who cared a whit about the kids?
No, it doesn't. So who was it?
I think we've narrowed down the subject list. While I am on record as calling for the resignation of Speaker Dennis Hastert, it's mostly for stupidity. I don't believe for a minute he actually knew what Foley was doing. He didn't know because he didn't want to know. Hastert cares mostly about one thing – staying speaker. And that meant, in his mind, keeping as many seats Republican as possible – even if some of those seats were held by semi-closeted homosexuals clearly in danger of being blackmailed.
It never dawned on Hastert that the chickens would come home to roost as they did – with Foley being outed, stepping down a month before the election and the loss of a seat Republicans had counted on as a sure thing.
But somebody did make that calculation. Somebody who would be willing to sacrifice a few more kids for the real prize – the House of Representatives.
Who do you suppose that is?
Who is it, for instance, who thinks marriage is a controversial institution?
Who is it that thinks marriage is "discrimination"?
Who is it that thinks the Boy Scouts of America is the most subversive group in the country because of its commitment to being "morally straight"?
Who is it that makes the Boy Scouts public enemy No. 1 because they ban homosexual scoutmasters?
That's right. Those ideas have a home – a very large and spacious and comfortable home, I might add – in the Democratic Party.
Who is that that promotes the idea of lowering the age of consent?
Who is it that doesn't think children really belong to their parents?
Who is it that opposes parental consent before underage girls can get abortions?
Who is it that protects the anonymity of the mostly adult men who impregnate those girls?
That's right. Those ideas have a home – a very large and spacious and comfortable (if a bit non-traditional) home, I might add – in the Democratic Party.
Now I'm still steaming about the way the Republicans handled this. It illustrates once again that they are unfit to govern and why they are often called "the stupid party."
But, acknowledging what I have written here is 100 percent true, how is it that anyone takes the Democrats seriously when they condemn what Foley did? And where is the investigation into who aided and abetted crimes by Foley by concealing evidence for a year or more?
Related special offer:
"Bankrupt: The Intellectual and Moral Bankruptcy of Today's Democratic Party"