> > Anyway, there is an ethical issue here. If you find nothing wrong with
> > Foley or his boyfriends, is it really a valid ethical position to
> > castigate him? See, I have this conflict. I hate jerks like Foley who
> > have made use of homophobia and some indistinct public
> > fear/fascination with sexuality. It would great fun to destory him and
> > the Repugnants with such faux scandals. But somehow that is just as
> > perverse a use of the political realm as the Right---which has
> > succeeded in destorying any political discourse, just as they did with
> > Clinton and Monica.
>
> Yup, exactly. That's why I posted that Dem press release from the
> other day with the subject heading "shameless pandering." It's crap.
> I can understand, from a purely opportunistic point of view, why
> they're doing it. But it's unprincipled crap.
> Doug
<<<<<>>>>>
why would anyone expect anything more/less (take your pick) than 'unprincipled crap'...
foley's sexuality had been periodically raised for a decade, initial 'outing' was in the gay press following his vote for the _defense of marriage_ act in 1996, subsequent stories made reference to a long-term relationship that he was in...
foley initially attempted to avoid the politics of the _federal marriage amendment_ several years ago by saying that he would make a decision when the house took up the bill, not only did this not put a stop to the allegations, it probably contributed to their renewal, and when word leaked that a major south florida newspaper was planning a feature story on the subject, he held a telephone conference call with editors from around the state decrying the matter...
the above episode combined with the religious right's consternation at his refusal to publicly support the _fma_ did in his u.s. senate campaign (although he said he withdrew because of his father's poor health), he later opposed the amendment, one of the few house republicans top do so...
some research i did on the christian right in florida disclosed that foley's house voting record on certain 'privacy' issues varied according to whether or not it was an election year, he was a bit more libertarian in non-election years while toeing the social conservative line much more closely during election years...
moreover, several gay and lesbian orgs gave him pretty high marks for votes on issues they deemed important... mh