When the Democratic leadership in the House gave New York Rep. Eric Massa the heave-ho, it represented an illustration of the party's situational ethics.
Massa was under investigation by the House Ethics Committee for making unwanted sexual advances toward male congressional staff. That's about all we the people know, because the Democratic leadership isn't talking officially – other than through innuendo about what a disturbed individual the first-term House member is.
Of course, I have no doubts he's deeply disturbed. After all, he serves as a Democratic member of the House. He and disgraced former New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer ran joint advertising during the 2008 campaign. We now know his lewd activities extended back during his time in the Navy. Any rational, grounded person who listens to this guy for five minutes would have to conclude he is at least one french fry short of a Happy Meal.
But why have the standards of behavior required for expulsion or discipline at the hands of Democratic congressional leadership suddenly been lowered for Eric Massa?
That's the key question.
Last I checked, Rep. Charles Rangel of New York was still serving in the House after 39 years of disgraceful activities including, recently, several felony investigations.
Rep. William Jefferson of Louisiana was indicted on 16 counts of corruption in 2007, and the Ethics Committee never disciplined him – only his district's voters did in 2008 when he was replaced by a Republican.
Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts allowed a call-boy ring to be run out of his home by his then-lover. No pressure was applied on him to leave office, and he is today a member of the House leadership.
Rep. Gerry Studds of Massachusetts had an affair with a 17-year-old male congressional page. While he was censured by the House, he also received a standing ovation from his Democratic colleagues for his defiant speech to them proclaiming his open homosexuality.
And let's not forget about how Democrats in Congress reacted to the fact that President Bill Clinton had an affair with a White House intern and lied under oath about it. Many of the same House leaders were around back then and urged the nation to forget about it and move on.
So what's different today? Why is Massa a different case altogether?
The answer is very simple.
Massa told a television audience he could never be persuaded to vote for Nancy Pelosi's health-care bill. It wasn't socialist enough for him. He demanded the single-payer (meaning government-run, taxpayer-paid) system that Pelosi and Barack Obama and Harry Reid really want, but know they cannot achieve without completely alienating the American people.
In other words, Massa had become a political liability to Pelosi, Reid and Obama. He was thwarting their will to push a health-care bill through Congress by any means necessary.
Because Pelosi knows she can't count on any Republican support, the idea of Democratic House members going south on her was intolerable – especially with Bart Stupak around claiming he's got a total of 12 Democratic votes against any bill that includes federal funding for abortion.
So Massa became not only expendable, he became a nuisance. He wasn't playing ball. Even the specter of a stark naked Rahm Emanuel in a shower wasn't enough to budge Massa.
In other words, it's not really about sexual harassment, as the Dems like to suggest. It's not really about "inappropriate activity," as the Dems like to suggest. It's not really about any immutable standards of behavior, as the Dems like to suggest.
Instead, it's about situational ethics.
The Dems blow the whistle on corruption and abuse in their own ranks only when the party responsible breaks from the party line.
In fact, it's the party line that is, in the final analysis, the only standard that really counts for Democrats.
Gee, where have I heard about a party like that before?