Ally wrote:
EdelBrock wrote: Politicians are politicians....doesn't really matter the party, just different ways of selling you to put then into power. Funny how people get so anal about party lines.
Two points:
I don't think you would've posted this if it were a Democrat congressman. Maybe not you yourself but I'm sure Tex would've weighed in with some ultra smug comment but in this instance he seems to have been robbed of that opportunity.
People getting anal about "party lines" is surely the basis of democracy itself? Otherwise what is the point in having different parties to choose from? You're in denial if you think nobody's bothered which party the "perv" comes from in this instance. I am not seeing what's "funny" about that considering political parties are heavily reliant on associations and reputations.
This type of thing is precisely one of the reasons the Tories were so thoroughly destroyed in the 1997 election over here because of the sheer amount of sleaze in their ranks. Tory ministers who were caught sucking off rent boys in a fish tank etc. didn't do them much good.
The old "Hey who cares which party they're from?" is a pretty desperate defence isn't it? As I say, I doubt you would've come out with it if it were really a Democrat congressman.
Dear Ally,
I wouldn't want to deny you any smugness....
Politically speaking - and let's take it for what it is - I don't think the Foley thing is that big a deal for the Reublicans. As a matter of fact, I think the Democrats will overplay their hands on this "issue". Let's examine: Foley didn't break any laws; it's now alleged that he had sex with a former page who was 21 at the time; his spokesman came out and said he's gay. All of these issues conspire against the credibility of Democratic indignation. You only have to look to their vehement defense of Bill Clinton. "No laws were broken! It was consensual sex!" Plus, the added complication of Democrats having to by extension condem gay sex. For a Republican, this is all very delicious.
