Originally Posted By Inspector 57 <<Bringing up a 15 year old confirmation hearing with a completely different set of circumstances hardly illuminates the issue.>> I think it goes very directly to Newt Gingrich's glib assertion that Republicans would NEVER stand for supporting someone who is involved in sexual impropriety. Re-read Newt's quotes that Darkbeer provided. Newt makes it sound as though Republicans put their own through the most stringent of tests and never give the benefit of the doubt. Clarence Thomas was definitely given the benefit of the doubt by Republican leadership. Gingrich is posturing. His column does nothing to meaningfully illuminate current events.
Originally Posted By TALL Disney Guy <glib> Ack! Please no one ever use that word again...all it does is conjure up horrific images of overobnoxious Tom Cruise talking down to Matt Lauer on "Today"...*shiver*...
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>I think it goes very directly to Newt Gingrich's glib assertion that Republicans would NEVER stand for supporting someone who is involved in sexual impropriety.<< I think you are reading more into the column than is there. Gingrich addresses three specific cases (Foley, Barney Frank, and Gerry Studds). He obviously chose them to illustrate his opinion, namely that Democrats are being hypocritical in their reaction to Foley. The final statements is the column do not make claims of absolute moral superiority: >>Republicans should be firm about setting a higher standard on protecting pages than the Democrats did. Republicans should be firm about insisting on a higher standard of enforcing the rules than the Democrats did. Republicans should not passively allow themselves to be lectured by hypocritical Democrats or the news media about their record compared to the Democrats when they were in charge.<< If he had said that the GOP have set higher standards of protecting pages, or enforcing rules, then I would find your point more well taken.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <And what business does the GOP asking people under oath who they've had relations with? < when it's done on public property - the White House - every right
Originally Posted By Inspector 57 <<If he had said that the GOP have set higher standards of protecting pages, or enforcing rules, then I would find your point more well taken.>> Fair enough. I wish I were knowledgeable enough to recall additional specific cases of Republican sexual impropriety, so that we could review how they were actually responded to by Republicans.
Originally Posted By gadzuux Here's a list for you. Mind you, this is only scandals involving sex with children, but it's a good place to start. <a href="http://www.armchairsubversive.com/" target="_blank">http://www.armchairsubversive. com/</a>
Originally Posted By DlandDug I forgot to mention that Post #4 did, indeed, better express what I meant. It was a poorly chosen turn of phrase in light of present circumstances. I do not believe, however, there was anything calculated in it.
