Gee… Could media bias – the media’s clear double standard in not identifying Democrats when they’re the scandal – have anything to do with all this?

While, when a Republican has a sex scandal, (a) it may not involve actual sex, and (b) it usually involves resigning.  (Larry Craig is the exception, and only by his own pig-headedness; most Republicans want him to resign.  Mark Foley did resign.  etc.)

And yet, despite that, the media *still* gives people the mis-impression that there are somehow more Republican sex scandals.  How is that?  The irony and hypocrisy are indeed very, very deep.

But to me what should and usually does highlight the narrative of these sex scandals are the hypocrisy of the individuals involved. The irony of Mark Foley, a leader on the protection of children from sexual predators, is found to have had explicit and inappropriate communication with underaged House pages…

That is indeed a dishonest representation of the Foley scandal. Some reminders:

- On present information, Foley didn’t have sex with any of these pages.  (Contrast to Gerry Studds.)
- On present information, Foley waited until these pages were over 18 before communicating with them in any explicit or inappropriate way.
- Despite having done nothing except act creepy, Foley (rightly) resigned as soon as anything came out.
- And why did things take so long to come out? Because *Democrats* sat on the story for many months, timing its release for electoral advantage. (So, do they really care about the kids?)
- *Democrats* such as Nancy Pelosi then exploited the scandal by… making anti-gay slurs.  Harping on a false gay=pedophilia stereotype.

The Foley scandal is indeed rich with irony and deep hypocrisy… the majority of it on the part of Democrats.

By that you must mean Republicans should be promoted to majority leader, or to a committee or two. How about "Conscience of the Senate? Perhaps it’s the liberals who need to clean house?

I suppose Republicans need to murder their girlfriends or have a history with the Klan to have a "clean house".

I call bullshit again.

This would be the beginning in closing the schism between what a Republican or conservative believes to what occasionally a Republican or conservative does.

I call bullshit on this standard. There has been no movement in history that can close the "schism" between what the group believes and what any given individual does. From whoremongering Republicans to money-laundering Marxists to SUV-driving environmentalists to "God Hates Fags" Christians full of Christ’s love, you’re never going to get a group that holds 100% to its tenants, so you should stop dishonestly painting an entire group with the failings of one. Especially when that group condemns the one… unlike some groups that circle wagons when they’re caught in hypocrisy.

And? This paragraph seems to imply that Republicans act as though GOP perverts shouldn’t be condemned by the same standards that the GOP promotes. I’ve never seen a situation in which Republicans thought some dirty GOP pervert deserved a break.

The GOP promotes traditional values, and just because some people don’t meet that standard doesn’t mean the standard needs to be ditched, and it doesn’t mean the movement as a whole has any kind of double standard.

But to me what should and usually does highlight the narrative of these sex scandals are the hypocrisy of the individuals involved. The irony of Mark Foley, a leader on the protection of children from sexual predators, is found to have had explicit and inappropriate communication with underaged House pages….

And then:
Promoting the family and protecting women and children from sexual exploitation are noble ideals, but Republicans and conservatives don’t realize that when they promote those ideals into black and white laws, they have to abide by them in the same manner they have determined for the rest of the country.

And who could forget:
Here’s a lesson for politicians of every political stripe:  My Grandfather used to tell me never to act holier than thou unless I was holier than thou.

So I guess the lesson here is that we should NEVER stand for any values that ALL of us can adhere to. While it is "noble" to promote these ideals, it’s pointless because none are righteous. We should forget about any morality because not everybody can live up to the standard. In other words, while it’s a good idea to have morals and standards, we should not have any because not everybody can live up to them. That, automatically makes them wrong.

The other lesson is that liberals have no morals and standards and can therefore not be accused of hypocirsy. If you have no standards to live up to, you can’t be faulted for not doing so. As far as the "holier than thou" comment, I guess we should have no laws or lawmakers. We should have no standard bearers because nobody is fully able to live up to them. We shouldn’t have laws against drugs, murder, prostitution etc. because people are just going to do it anyway.

Then there’s the absurd and patently dishonest screed on gay marriage. Bush and many Republicans/Conservatives are opposed to gay marriage. What the liberals don’t want anybody to know is that they DO support civil unions and the right of the states to decide on them. Liberals, however, who despise "states’ rights", because it’s tantamount to racism and bigotry, want unaccountable judges to hand down the law of the land. That’s unconstitutional, but nevermind that since it grants them what they want. The Constitutional Ammendment, which nobody in their right (or left) mind ever expected would pass was not about bigotry, but rather preventing judges from subverting their constitutional duty.

But we can’t have honesty since that would undermine the leftist agenda. We haven’t seen a DAMN example of honesty from gays and/or the left over the past several years. Why in the hell should we expect it now?

The overall lesson is not that if you don’t stand for something, you’ll fall for anything. Rather, if you don’t stand for anything, you can’t be accused of anything if you fail to live up to that standard. It’s "noble" to take a stand, but ultimately, one or a few will fcuk up, so it’s not worth it, supposedly, in the long run.

Again:
Here’s a lesson for politicians of every political stripe:  My Grandfather used to tell me never to act holier than thou unless I was holier than thou.

We should not have laws or lawmakers because not all of them will abide by the laws set forth. "Noble", but not worth it.

The reason Republicans get more media attention, I think, is that so often the Republicans caught with their pants down have relied on morality issues  and family values to get elected.  Barney Frank’s scandal didn’t raise as many eyebrows as Larry Craig’s episode in the airport reatroom did because Frank wasn’t attacking gay rights and using people’s fear of gay marriage as a wedge issue.

That’s precisely the reason Governor Spitzer’s scandal is getting so much attention and he’s gotten so little support even from among Democrats.  He’s a hypocrite.  As New York attorney general he was a crusading zealot against alleged corruption and took the pious, moral high ground as he prosecuted prositution rings (at the same time he was involved with prostitutes).  Upon his election as governor, he used state resources in an effort to bring down the Republican majority leader in the New York Senate.

Here’s a lesson for politicians of every political stripe:  My Grandfather used to tell me never to act holier than thou unless I was holier than thou.

I haven’t done any kind of run down, but I can recall at least as many DNC sex scandals as GOP ones over the last few years.  I figure the reality is that they are probably about the same, and my theory on why is more to do with the power and culture in power centers than anything to do with sexual repression, but I haven’t done a study on it.