[lbo-talk] Susie Bright on Foley etc

[jthorn65 at sbcglobal.net]

> On Oct 3, 2006, at 5:52 PM, Charles A. Grimes wrote:
> 
> > 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.
> 
> It's so good to see someone pointing out that 16-year-olds aren't  
> kids, too.
> 
> Doug

Is it "unprincipaled crap" to hold people to the standard they have loudly and pompously held is both their 
standard and the "morally correct" standard? I'm not so sure it is. 

I guess I should state that I think the Dems are engaged in shameless pandering but that in and of itself 
attacking Repugs for failing to adhere to their own self-righteousness doesn't seem to me to create an ethical 
issue. If Foley had not already postitioned himself on this issue far from where he truly stood then an ethical 
problem might exist. If Clinton was a member of some Govt. Office on Fidelity then the Monica issue would 
have been fair game. As he was not his private affairs should have been just that. Monica wasn't 15 either.

If Repugs get bludgened with the moral standard they attempt to create to set themselves apart from others 
perhaps it might go some way towards a reappraisal of that standard. Perhaps for a few people anyway.

I'm not sure what gain is made by someone pointing out 16 year olds are not kids. This point seems rather 
inconsequential to me. The youngest page was 15. Is he a child? Is he an adult? Definitely more child than 
adult for most 15 (or 16) year olds. Foley misused his position of power and authority to try to take advantage 
sexually of someone very young. Whether they were 15 or 17 makes no difference as far as I can see. 

John Thornton