Tollerating Perversion

How many of the people who are going nuts like this gave Clinton a pass on Paula Jones and Juanita Broddrick? How many of the people giddy at getting Foley were people who signed the MoveOn.org petition? Where is the issue for a social liberal? The boy’s ages? They were both 17. That’s above the age of consent in most places, and I can’t imagine someone railing against that. Was it the gay thing? Aren’t we supposed to be tollerant of homosexuality in a socially liberal society?

It offends me on the harassment issue. He was taking advantage of someone he held civic power over. He abused his office. Which brings me back to Clinton. Paula Jones had just as much evidence as we have here. Juanita Broddrick had just as much evidence. Clinton had just as much of a history of being a lecher as this guy.

So how many of you who want to pursue this are people who were saying “move on” when the pervert had a D behind his name instead of an R?

6 Comments

  1. Vivian says:

    According to the Drudge Report the intern in question was 18 at the time of the nasty IM. It doesn’t remove the obvious lack of propriety of the messages, but if the kid was legal, then the pederasty issue is gone.

  2. Mexigogue says:

    I like how people treat the pedophilia question as a matter of law, as if vaginas and firemen actually mature faster on one side of the state border. The age/power comparison between Clinton/Lewinski and Foley/page-boy makes the cases virtually identical in that respect. It’s not like this case involves 8 year olds!

  3. R says:

    Welcome to partisan politics.

  4. karlman says:

    A. Exactly what was the evidence of Paula Jones? Heresay? The “eyewitness” accounts of political operatives?
    B. Lewinsky, bless her slutty little heart, was an active participant and, by her own words, the instigator in the admittedly sick relationship. Remember the thong? But the act was consensual.

    3. The pages were not willing participants, and if they were female, the left would be just as disgusted.

    d. Finally, the argument goes both ways–why are all those on the right who thought a blowjob in the office was the worst most impeachable thing ever now willing to give a Foley–a gay man (gasp!)–pass and, in fact, cover up an act as bad as the one they thought the world needed to know?

    If there’s hypocrisy on this, it’s on the right.

  5. Phelps says:

    Wee…

    A: Paula Jones’ evidence is outlined in Paula Jones v William Jefferson Clinton. The case was dismissed on summary judgment based on there being no actual monetary damages awardable to Jones, not for lack of evidence. The apeal was settled for close to a million dollars, IIRC.

    B&3: (You show such keen mental organization.) If you took a look at the IM exchange, it is patently obvious that this is a consentual exchange. It is one thing to have a guy ask you for a picture — it is another to graphicly describe to him how you work your own equipment.

    d: First, Clinton was impeached for obstruction of justice and perjury. The saddest part of the whole affair was that there wouldn’t have been any grounds to impeach him had he simply owned up to it and not lied in his deposition. (He probably would have been nailed by the court in Arkansas, though.)

    Second, I don’t think there is any VRWC to “cover up” the whole thing. In fact, the right side of the aisle has roundly condemned it. Foley resigned from office. Foley is not running for re-election.

    You know what the right wanted out of Clinton? They wanted Clinton to resign from office. When he wouldn’t resign, they wanted him impeached, which carries the greatest penalty of removal from office. Clinton made it clear that had it been legally possible, he would have run for re-election.

    I don’t hold hypocrisy to be a very grave sin. It is much better to fail to live up to a moral standard than to have no moral standards at all. Even at that, you haven’t found any hypocrisy here. Keep looking.

  6. Mexigogue says:

    I used to think the other side was simply mistaken when they represented that the impeachment was about a blowjob rather than about perjury. Now I’ve seen it so much I think they’re intentionally misrepresenting.

    Second, I like how this guy seems to think consent is predicated on age in fact rather than simply as a matter of law. He’s wrong on both counts as under Florida law those pages were old enough to legally consent AND even if they hadn’t been in a charge of statutory rape a minor can still be said to have consented in fact but that consent is tossed out as a matter of law. Think a fifteen year old me and Shirley Fini from Laverne and Shirley (ok I admit I’m fucking STRANGE so sue me!)

    Anyway it’s fun to watch the other side put body english on the roll and then accuse the opponent of bias. Wee indeed.