Holy sh*t... the LA Times???

[mnealtx 0]

From an LA Times Op-Ed piece

*fair use applies*

Quote

Jonah Goldberg: Foley Flap Highlights Dems' Hypocrisy
Where was the left's furor over the Clinton sex scandals of the '90s?
October 5, 2006

THE DEMOCRATS prayed for an October surprise and, like manna from heaven, a hypocritical, sexually disturbed Florida Republican dropped into their laps. They looked at the cyber-stalking ephebophile and said, "Behold, this is good."

Overnight, Nancy Pelosi has emerged as the nation's soccer grandmom, disgusted with the GOP leadership's alleged partisan coverup of a sex "predator" and "pedophile." (Foley may or may not be a predator, but pedophiles don't dig post-pubescent teens; ephebophiles do.)

ADVERTISEMENT
Almost as instantaneously, Democratic candidates denounced their opponents for taking money from Foley, as if acceptance of such funds constituted support for pederasty.

Now, let me be clear. I carry no water for the House GOP. Less than a month ago, in these very pages, I wrote that I thought it would probably be a good thing if the Republicans lost the House. So, I'm hardly inclined to rally to their flag because of their handling of this Foley mess. But let me make a prediction: Despite the Crucible-like moral panic sweeping Washington right now, this will backfire on Democrats, liberals and the gay left.

Self-described progressives are great at whipping up a moral frenzy when it serves their purposes, and hilariously indignant when Moral Majority types return fire in kind. Remember the national bout of St. Vitus' dance over sexual harassment in the late 1980s and early 1990s? Liberals made sexual harassment their signature issue, rending their clothes and gnashing their teeth over Sens. John Tower and Bob Packwood and Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas, among others. The puritanical zeal of these inquisitions cannot be exaggerated.

And then came Bill Clinton, who was, by any fair measure, a worse womanizer than Thomas or the rest of them. The Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit led, inexorably, to revelations of alleged rape and scandalous behavior with an intern. Forced to choose between power and principle, liberals and feminists held an impromptu fire sale on principles.

Whereas once feminists insisted that "women don't make these things up," accusations of rape were dismissed instantaneously. Whereas once zero tolerance was the rule ("no means no"), feminist deity Gloria Steinem suddenly advanced a one-free-grope rule for powerful men. Whereas once even the appearance of impropriety was unacceptable, feminists suddenly argued that everyone should lighten up. Former Sen. Carol Moseley Braun, elected in 1992 — the "Year of the Woman" — as part of the anti-Thomas "backlash," argued that female interns should count themselves lucky in the Clinton White House. After all, she said, "30 years ago, women weren't even allowed to be White House interns."

Now, it would be unfair to suggest that liberals have been clamoring for gays to have an unfettered right to hit on teenage boys and are only reversing themselves out of partisan opportunism. Although the fact that liberals hardly objected to Democratic Rep. Gerry Studds' continued service in the House for 13 years after he unapologetically admitted to having had actual sex with a teen page — as opposed to the less harmful cyber variety — and after an investigation revealed his advances were not always invited does cast a harsh light on those now screeching about Foley being a "sexual predator."

But it is fair to say liberals aren't thinking things through. Democratic strategist Bob Beckel suggested this week that the mere fact Foley is gay should have "raised questions" about his friendships with pages. If Foley were a Democrat and GOP spinners suggested gays are automatically suspect as predators, the now-silent Human Rights Campaign and other gay rights groups would go ballistic.

What liberals don't understand is that social conservatives actually believe their moral rhetoric, even when it's politically inconvenient. That's why GOP Rep. Bob Livingston of Louisiana had to resign when his marital infidelities became public during the Clinton impeachment, much to the chagrin of Democrats who wanted to advance the "everybody does it" defense of President Clinton. And that's why vast numbers of social conservatives now want Speaker J. Dennis Hastert's head on a pike.

Meanwhile, the only moral lapse that reliably and consistently offends all liberals collectively is hypocrisy. As Howard Dean declared on "Meet the Press" last year: "Everybody has ethical shortcomings. We ought not to lecture each other about our ethical shortcomings." But he continued: "I will use whatever position I have in order to root out hypocrisy." This is a remarkably convenient principle insofar as it can indict only people with actual principles.

Fanning the flames of righteous fervor over Foley will probably reap electoral benefits for Democrats. But the time will come when something like the "Foley standard" will be inconvenient to Democrats. In response, liberals will hold another fire sale. And yet, they will be stunned again when people claim the Democrats don't stand for anything.

jgoldberg@latimescolumnists.com

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Funny, pretty easy to turn this around on the Republicans.

They were all upset because Clinton abused his power to get sex from an intern.

Why aren't they all evenly outraged that Foley was trying to use his position to get sex from young ones?

Moral of the story:

Democrats and Republicans are both hypocrites.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Funny, pretty easy to turn this around on the Republicans.

They were all upset because Clinton abused his power to get sex from an intern.

Why aren't they all evenly outraged that Foley was trying to use his position to get sex from young ones?

Moral of the story:

Democrats and Republicans are both hypocrites.

Because there was no sex with an underaged minor, perhaps?

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Because there was no sex with an underaged minor, perhaps?

Correct, but he was using a powerful position to try and have sex with those easily impressed by his position.

Wasn't that what many Republicans were really upset about? About abuse of power and a deteriorated decorum of the office of the president?

What about the decorum of the office of Congress and a middle aged guy trying to abuse his power to shag teens?

Shouldn't that equally outrage the same republicans?

[juanesky 0]

Quote

Quote

Because there was no sex with an underaged minor, perhaps?

Correct, but he was using a powerful position to try and have sex with those easily impressed by his position.

Prosecutor, judge and jury?

This is not about being partisan, is about what this means for congressmen that get a free ride.

Besides, he is being investigated, resigned his position and if indicted-convicted I personally would like to see him behind bars.

Quote

Wasn't that what many Republicans were really upset about? About abuse of power and a deteriorated decorum of the office of the president?

Not only republicans were upset and outraged. You fail to see that what he did was against the law, perjury has it consequences, yet his party was pretty eager to save him no matter what his criminal actions were, and also the hipocrisy of getting sexual favors where those actions if taken by any other men in the counrty could have been construed as sexual harrasment.

Quote

What about the decorum of the office of Congress and a middle aged guy trying to abuse his power to shag teens?

Shouldn't that equally outrage the same republicans?

I'm outraged and am not a republican, or have any party affiliation.

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Because there was no sex with an underaged minor, perhaps?

Correct, but he was using a powerful position to try and have sex with those easily impressed by his position.

Wasn't that what many Republicans were really upset about? About abuse of power and a deteriorated decorum of the office of the president?

What about the decorum of the office of Congress and a middle aged guy trying to abuse his power to shag teens?

Shouldn't that equally outrage the same republicans?

How much more outrage do you want? Everyone on this site agrees Foley is a scumbag, he was forced to resign immediately and if he broke any laws he should be prosecuted.

Would a public flogging be enough?

[kallend 2,182]

Why the surprise?

The LA Times is owned by the Tribune Company, a stalwart supporter of the Republican party.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[juanesky 0]

no, what would apeace them would be a lynching.

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Why the surprise?

The LA Times is owned by the Tribune Company, a stalwart supporter of the Republican party.

Oh, puh-lease...MSM is *anything* but conservatively biased.

You like talking about FOX being right-wing... if that's the case, why is Rupert Murdock stumping for Hillary??

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 2,182]

Quote

Quote

Why the surprise?

The LA Times is owned by the Tribune Company, a stalwart supporter of the Republican party.

Oh, puh-lease...MSM is *anything* but conservatively biased.

You like talking about FOX being right-wing... if that's the case, why is Rupert Murdock stumping for Hillary??

Puh-lease yourself. The LA Times IS owned by the Tribune Company, which HAS been a stalwart supporter of the Republican party for 100+ years. The Tribune endorsed Bush in 2000 and 2004.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

no, what would apeace them would be a lynching.

Perhaps a trip to Guantanamo?

[mnealtx 0]

Oddly enough, the EDITOR of the LA Times doesn't seem to agree with you...

Quote

The media industry has been infested by the rise of pseudo-journalists who go against journalism's long tradition to serve the public with accurate information, Los Angeles Times Editor John S. Carroll told a packed room in the Gerlinger Lounge on Thursday.

Carroll delivered the annual Ruhl Lecture, titled "The Wolf in Reporter's Clothing: The Rise of Pseudo-Journalism in America." The lecture was sponsored by the School of Journalism and Communication.

"All over the country there are offices that look like newsrooms and there are people in those offices that look for all the world just like journalists, but they are not practicing journalism," he said. "They regard the audience with a cold cynicism. They are practicing something I call a pseudo-journalism, and they view their audience as something to be manipulated."

In a scathing critique of Fox News and some talk show hosts, such as Bill O'Reilly, Carroll said they were a "different breed of journalists" who misled their audience while claiming to inform them. He said they did not fit into the long legacy of journalists who got their facts right and respected and cared for their audiences.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 2,182]

Quote

Oddly enough, the EDITOR of the LA Times doesn't seem to agree with you...

Quote

The media industry has been infested by the rise of pseudo-journalists who go against journalism's long tradition to serve the public with accurate information, Los Angeles Times Editor John S. Carroll told a packed room in the Gerlinger Lounge on Thursday.

Carroll delivered the annual Ruhl Lecture, titled "The Wolf in Reporter's Clothing: The Rise of Pseudo-Journalism in America." The lecture was sponsored by the School of Journalism and Communication.

"All over the country there are offices that look like newsrooms and there are people in those offices that look for all the world just like journalists, but they are not practicing journalism," he said. "They regard the audience with a cold cynicism. They are practicing something I call a pseudo-journalism, and they view their audience as something to be manipulated."

In a scathing critique of Fox News and some talk show hosts, such as Bill O'Reilly, Carroll said they were a "different breed of journalists" who misled their audience while claiming to inform them. He said they did not fit into the long legacy of journalists who got their facts right and respected and cared for their audiences.

What in that article contradicts anything I wrote?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Perhaps here, where you talk about how STRONGLY the Times supports the Republicans.

And, since y'all love harping on how "right-winged" FOX is... then obviously the editor of the Times (you know, the guy that decides what goes in the paper???) DOESN'T support the Repubs... regardless of how the guy that owns the paper votes...

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Remster 30]

Quote

And, since y'all love harping on how "right-winged" FOX is...

Because, as we all know, There's the Fox point of view, and everything else is extreme left....

You're funny!

Remster

[steveorino 7]

IMHO unfortunately what is lost in all this crap is politics is more important than integrity, morals.
Republicans and Democrats typically turn their head when their own party lacks integrity or morals.

"Republicans are hypocrites!"
"Clinton was worse!"

I say, BS! Let's quit making excuses and quit using these opportunities of character collapses and shortcomings to play politics.

It sickens me this guy is a closet gay man who prefers the young and vulnerable. It is the same sickening feeling I get when the world's most powerful man keeps his brain near his zipper.

I wished the dems would desire a prez who was morally upright, and I wish the reps would police their own.

steveOrino

[billvon 3,132]

>It sickens me this guy is a closet gay man who prefers the young
> and vulnerable. It is the same sickening feeling I get when the
> world's most powerful man keeps his brain near his zipper.

It doesn't sicken me that he's a closet gay, or that he likes young guys. What does worry me is that he'd use his power to go after underage people under him.

But as I've said before, he's resigned, and it's pretty much guaranteed he'll never work in politics again. Let the DA decide if there's anything to charge him with. Until then, I think our best course of action is to encourage our government to work more on, well, governing and less on blaming each other for anything and everything.

With Clinton, I could care less who he did in which office. But it was incredibly stupid of him to a) think he could get away with it and b) think that lying about it would work.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Wasn't that what many Republicans were really upset about? About abuse of power and a deteriorated decorum of the office of the president?

No, I was pissed about him lying about it. Not happy with either Foley nor Clinton for using power to get sex. But given the choice I'd rather have the CiC getting hummers in the oval office that a pedafile almost anywhere. (Of course the I am still waiting to see if the IM's were to an 18 year old before I hang Foley).

Quote

What about the decorum of the office of Congress and a middle aged guy trying to abuse his power to shag teens?

Shouldn't that equally outrage the same republicans?

And it does.

But there is this from the original post, "Gerry Studds' continued service in the House for 13 years after he unapologetically admitted to having had actual sex with a teen page — as opposed to the less harmful cyber variety — and after an investigation revealed his advances were not always invited does cast a harsh light on those now screeching about Foley being a "sexual predator."

Which is worse, Cyber sex or actual sex?