The Bosque Boys

Gateway Pundit remains your one-stop source for information on the Democrat fund-raising scandals specifically involving Hillary. Information and links. I wish the MSM were covering this wall-to-wall like they do much less important stories.

The cases of Larry Craig and Mark Foley are fundamentally different.

Writing last fall about the "Foley Mess" (within the context of the then-coming election of 2006), I asserted:

"A case of perversion and arrogance. I had never heard of Mark Foley before Friday night, but he was an important person in the GOP hierarchy. And he was also a sexual (homosexual) predator whom the GOP leadership allowed to roam the halls of Congress and solicit underage pages unchecked. Once again, the party of morality faces a moral crisis."

Back then, I was disgusted and demoralized. And I was mad. I was angry at Republican leadership. Foley's bent toward sexually harassing and pursuing young men was an open secret on Capitol Hill. The passivity of GOP leadership in the face of such egregious conduct equaled complicity, and that was shameful.

I was especially infuriated at Dennis Hastert, whom I greatly admired prior to the Foley revelation. In truth, I have yet to fully forgive the former-Speaker for allowing Mark Foley to hustle teenagers entrusted to the United States Congress, presumably under the protection of the hulking, grand-fatherly, former wrestling coach and history teacher.

For me, the Foley revelation was the moral nadir of the modern Republican Party.

I do not feel the same way about Larry Craig. Although it looks increasingly likely the friendless senator from Idaho is finished politically (evidently, a tearful resignation is imminent), I feel only sympathy for him as a human being.

Unlike Foley, who evidently flaunted his sexuality within the circles of Washington power, Craig took great pains to conceal his secret desires from his colleagues, his family, and, perhaps most pitiably, himself.

The Senator's tortured protestations of innocence, "I am not gay; I have never been gay," strike me as ardently hopeful exclamations from a troubled soul. That is, while me thinks he protests too much, I cannot shake the sense that his toughest and principal audience is his own conscience.

The double standard among the Republicans is embarrassing. The GOP readily forgave David Vitter's heterosexual peccadilloes--but they are united in their disgust for Craig's "disgusting behavior" (which, according to the police report, was cryptically signaling his interest in an undercover officer of the same sex in a bathroom stall in an airport in Minneapolis).

The shame of Republican leadership in this instance is not that they allowed a "pervert" in their midst; rather, the moral failing of the GOP leadership in the matter of Larry Craig is the rush to abandon a troubled friend in need.

Still to Come in a Future Post: The worst hypocrisy exhibited in this whole sordid affair actually comes from the Democrats and the shock troops of "tolerance."

In celebration of National College Colors Day, some simple Southern California wisdom:

When some loud braggart tries to put me down
And says his school is great
I tell him right away
Now whats the matter buddy
Aint you heard of my school
Its number one in the state

So be true to your school now
Just like you would to your girl or guy
Be true to your school now
And let your colors fly
Be true to your school

The Missouri legislature earlier passed a new law that mandates most abortion clinics must meet the standards for an "ambulatory surgical center." Story here. Link from Layman Online.

This law sounds reasonable to me. Abortion is surgery, therefore abortion clinics should meet the same requirements that other outpatient surgery clinics must meet.

But no. Planned Parenthood is now suing in Federal Court to block enforcement of the law, saying it would impose hardship.

I guess in some quarters you may attack motherhood and perhaps even apple pie, but don't touch abortion or Planned Parenthood.

I have always loved Stu Nahan's line in the first Rocky :

"The challenger seems to be blocking punches with his face."

John McCain has blocked a lot of punches with his face lately--but he continues to keep coming. It is who he is.

Although I counted McCain out several weeks ago--I was just last night thinking that things were so dreadful on the GOP side that McCain might still have a chance to win the nomination the old fashioned way.

Alas, Emmett Tyrrell, of American Spectator fame beats me to the counter punch. His article, "John McCain Battles On" is worth reading here.

One of the finalists for bishop of the Diocese of Chicago is a practicing lesbian. Story here. Link from Religion News.

Third-world bishops of the Anglican communion have reprimanded their Episcopal brethren for abandoning biblican standards on sexuality, and set a Sept 30 deadline for repentance.

But, American Anglicans (Episcopalians) ignore their brethren and vow they will not change course. See earlier post. I guess for the Episcopal hierarchy it is still the White Man's Burden to lead his black, brown, and yellow brothers into enlightenment.

In response to Farmer's post and comment on Bush's legacy being Iraq, MM made the following comment.

I didn't mean to hijack your post, Farmer, but I'll go ahead and answer your question, with another question, of course. Salvageable for whom? For Bush? No. It's not going to happen in time for him to get credit. It falls to Bush to have the legacy of getting us into the mess of Iraq, not for fixing it.

The more important question, when it comes right down to it, is "Is Iraq salvageable for the Iraqis?" I'm torn on this one. Part of me wants to say no, for many reasons. One of these is that the concept of an "Iraqi" is only 60 years old, which may not be enough of a history to draw upon in an effort to reunite, especially in a region united by tribe and religion before political idealogy or "national" sentiments as the West views them. Another reason is that the US screwed up the country beyond repair. I'm not going to get into the initial invasion, but just say that our conduct of the occupation since then has been atrocious. We have spent far too much time, money, political capital, and American and Iraqi lives on first "shock and awe" and then "boots on the ground". We should have had the primary focus of maintaining Iraq as a nation-state, with functioning infrastructure and a viable economy. A third reason would be the exodus of the very Iraqis most likely to salvage Iraq. The number of Iraqi professionals - doctors, engineers, lawyers, diplomats - who have fled the violence of Baghdad for the security of cities from Damascus to Detroit has drained the nation of too many skilled workers. The repair of the country, if it happens, will be done by outsiders, or, maybe, by returned Iraqis. But not soon.

So the side of me that wants to say yes does so very reluctantly. I said that it might be salvageable for the Iraqis, but we could still go about this in a couple of different ways. If the interests of the US are held paramount, than we should stay, investing far more than we are now. We would have to maintain our current troop levels, and double our spending, ensuring that all of the additional spending goes to restructuring Iraq, rather than to security. Encourage the return of Iraqis, promote the rule of law, implement piecemeal market reforms (gently...), repair means of oil production, ensure distribution of wealth. Done by us. It might work. Maybe.

Or, we could leave. This might be the best for individual Iraqi citizens, just not for the nation. It's hard to worry about repairing your country's legal system when you're worried about your neighbor killing you. I'm not saying that if we left, the killing would stop. It would probably continue for quite some time, and Iraq would never look the same. I think it would gradually partition, much like India and Pakistan, along religious lines. Whether they were officially separate countries or not, Shiite would cease to mix with Sunni, and the Kurdish independence movement would continue to slog ahead. The Shiite south might become an Iranian satellite, ruled by JAM. The Sunni Triangle+ might be harshly ruled by AQI. US interests would suffer, to say the least - our enemies would have gained new territory, our oil would be cut off (or left in the ground), and we'd risk losing what few allies we have in the region. But the average Iraqi citizen? He might go back to his plow, shop, or practice, since he could leave his family at home, surrounded by neighbors who think like him, protected by dangerous men who are also connected to him.

Gateway Pundit brings together the latest information on the gathering scandal storm over Hillary's campaign contributions.

Wizbang has more.

The Wall Street Journal broke this story this week on another potential scandal involving money and Hillary. Link from Instapundit.

Instapundit links to this post that should be must reading for any of us trying to understand radical Islam.

The article quoted in the linked post is here in its entirety.

Thinking through the Craig scandal:

1. Judging from the police report, the circumstances, the reaction, and the Senator's murky rumored past, it is reasonable to conclude that Larry Craig was cruising the Minneapolis airport for a homosexual encounter of the fast and anonymous variety.

2. Having said that, the evidence is pretty thin. While I have no doubt that the police officer's sense of what transpired is correct (see #1), the details are pretty sketchy. There is no DNA, no video, no corroborating witnesses, and no confession. In an era of Court TV in which numerous "Dream Teams" have rescued the rich and powerful from the long arm of the law, it is hard to imagine that the actual case against Craig could get very far.

3. Of course, the strength of the evidence was not the point. Craig was right to understand from the very moment he saw that badge appear under his stall that his career was in mortal jeopardy. His decision to keep the incident quiet and hope it went away appears incredibly naive and unrealistic to us now, but it was probably his best hope. No matter how flimsy the evidence in this case--he could not afford to risk public exposure. He must have been desperate and on the verge of panic--but, in retrospect, he probably would not have fared any better with any alternative course of action.

4. What about Barney Frank? Apples & Oranges. It is true that a similar Barney Frank incident would not make much noise or impact. Rush would get some mileage out of it. A few internet jokes would make the rounds. But, for the most part, a similar event for Congressman Frank would be a non-story. Why? Frank makes no secret about his proclivities. Barney Frank soliciting an undercover police officer in a men's restroom would surprise us no more than Lindsey Lohan driving drunk. Having said that, cheerleaders for the Democrats love this story. Moreover, there is an extra zest to much of the mainstream media reporting that I doubt would be there if this was a similarly positioned Democrat.

5. An MSM article of faith in all this has been "hypocrisy" and "self-loathing." The standard line: "Craig has been a consistent opponent of gay rights." By that they mean that Craig has supported the marriage amendment, voted for the DOMA, and championed various other pieces of legislation in support of traditional heterosexual marriage.

Is that really hypocritical?

The accusation of "hypocrisy" is based on the assumption that every honest person and/or politician with same-sex inclinations should embrace the gay lifestyle and support "gay civil rights." More sloppy thinking based on a priori reasoning, which declares same-sex marriage and homosexual culture on a par with heterosexuality in terms of collective good. Certainly, folks who subscribe to this view have every right to argue their case in the public square, but the jury is still out. At the very least, we can say that reasonable people continue to disagree on this issue.

In a nutshell, a person who chooses to resist same-sex urges ought to have the right to advocate public policy positions that promote heterosexuality over homosexuality as a better choice for society.

-------

PS: For your file marked "more analysis I thought I would never read in a serious newspaper," the serially inappropriate Dana Milbank, Washington Post political columnist, has a lot of fun at the expense of Larry Craig and other stuffy, hypocritical Republicans here.