Article: Now Who is Moral?

The current furor over Mark Foley and the Conservative Republicans jumping on the "homosexual rights" bandwagon, with Rush Lindbaugh and other right wing pundits claiming that it is the liberals that are using sexual preferences in a "baiting" scheme, I can't help but look back on the Monica Lewinsky, Bill Clinton scandal and wonder what they believe they are proving. Is this the same Republican Party that was shoving "moral values" down the American people's throats? Is this the same political party that claimed that the President, because he was indiscreet with a legal age White House intern, and lied about it to a special investigator that really had no place asking him such a personal question publically in the first place, actually defending a colleague, Dennis Hastert, because he covered up for a pedophile? When do we as a people finally wake up and see what this GOP is made of?

When is it a concern of the people? I believe that The Speaker of The House, third in line for the presidency, especially in this scenario, with the president facing impeachment if a Democratic majority is elected in the House, and a Vice-President who might just be implicated with him in a case of high crimes and misdemeanors, are we as a nation going to give the presidency to a man like Dennis Hastert? In the unlikely, but possible scenario of the President and Vice-President resigning before the new Congress is sworn in, that would bring Dennis Hastert in as President. What a dilemma. Would the Democrats move to impeach him also? Would the American people accept it after the President and The Vice President resigned, would they stand for this new President being impeached because of this Foley Scandal? Would Bush and Cheney do something like that to stop a Democratic Speaker of The House from becoming President if they were both impeached? I could see it happening.

This scenario is highly unlikely. I just brought it up, to show my readers, how far this Republican Party has sunk. This "Moral Majority" is neither Moral, nor the majority it says it is. We can't trust anything they say, we can't trust anything that they do. The timing of breaking this story leaves more questions than answers. The Republicans claim that the Democrats pushed to have this story leaked before the elections, could it really be that the Republicans had it leaked so that it would come out when Congress was not in session because of the elections? Is it because they knew that the story would break soon, so they pushed it up so that they could smooth things over in time to make Mr. Hastert President? Even if it is unlikely, maybe the congress should be reconvened to vote on ousting the current speaker, just to make sure.

This is how The Republican Party operates, on lies and innuendo. Do you see how easily I came up with the same type of hysteria to bring on a distrust of anything the Republicans do, even if the truth might be completely different? It sounds plausible enough, hell, it might even be the truth! If I could work on this bit of propaganda, I could probably have a good percentage of people that read this, paranoid as hell about what the underlying motives are for everything that happens in Washington.

While we are on the subject of morals and political uses of scandals to advance the Republican agenda, why don't we take a good look at what they did to President Clinton. It has come out now, that the Special Prosecutor had absolutely no right to ask The President the questions that he asked him. The nation's interests or security were not at stake. It was not in the same class as "High Crimes and Misdemeanors". The lawyers now are saying that the whole question of President Clinton and Monica Lewinsky could have waited until The President's term of office was over. Why didn't he do that? It was because the Republican's could not stop calling for "full disclosure" from the President.

So why can't we get 'Full Disclosure" from The Speaker of the House"? I believe that since he is in line for the presidency, I would like to know if he broke the law and committed a felony by shielding a fellow Congressman because he was from his own party. If Dennis Hastert becomes President, will he obey the law? Did he obey the law in regard to Mark Foley? This is a perfectly legitimate question. In light of the way President Clinton was made to testify in regard to the Monica Lewinsky scandal, this is much worse. It isn't about whether Dennis Hastert is a liar, but wether he BROKE THE LAW. If President Clinton had to testify about adultery, Rep. Hastert should be compelled to testify about shielding a pedophile. The Christian Right should be screaming for the same disclosure that they demanded from Clinton. The Republicans should not be able to have it both ways. Morality should not be determined by which party you are registered with. If Rep. Hastert cannot be compelled to testify if he broke the law or not, then it only makes sense they should pardon President Clinton.