Cliff LyonMy Bad
Thank you everyone who corrected my assumption that Cannon’s “gaydar” statement would doom his candidacy. I have since become convinced that based on informal consensus, apparently, bigot-confirming-statements only serve to solidify the perception of Cannon’s worthiness to serve his constituents.
And thanks also to Tim H. for this gem as follows
And don’t miss this winner from Voice of Utah
And this beauty from my good friend Ken,
The truth is if Foley was a Democrat you would all be circling the wagons around him and accusing Republicans of gay bashing. In fact after reading this article you are accusing Republicans of gay bashing anyway. “gaydar†is not Chris Cannon’s word, I have heard gays use the word themselves.
(btw: I hope more of us will take a cue from Ken, and use our real names)
And Derek’s response to Ken (in part),
If the indignation appears selective, it is because the Republicans swept into office wrapping themselves in the robes of morality and Christianity. They cast endless aspersions on liberals as the party of immorality, licentiousness, and sleeze. In the ’90s, They became hysterical in their crusade against Clinton for his sins.
And a gentle reminder from me; we knew Clinton was a scumbag when we elected him. Remember Jennifer Flowers and the other one (someone help me here)? That’s right. We knew Clinton was a womanizer before we elected him. We also knew Bush was a drunk and a cokehead too, and we elected him.
Is it not the beauty of our system that we can “select” flawed men to serve us? Such human weaknesses whether fleeting or ongoing engender the greatest of all virtues, forgiveness.
Bigotry however is inexcusable. Bigotry is not a weakness in the face of temptation; it is conscious, purposeful, cruel, and immoral. A vote for Cannon, is a vote for bigotry and hate; the most UNFORGIVABLE sin.
October 5th, 2006 at 10:07 am
Excuse me Cliff for piling on, but you’ve just made another mistake. Bush was not “elected” in 2000, he was “selected” by a Supreme Court vote of 5-4, if memory serves. Al Gore won the popular vote cleanly and would have won the electoral vote were it not for Bush’s Baby Brother.
October 5th, 2006 at 10:30 am
You’re right. I thought about that exactly as I wrote that but couldn’t find the words without detracting from the point. Thank you for the right word.
Correction in progress.
btw: YOU should come tonight. See < href="http://oneutah.org/2006/10/05/an-invitation-to-readers/">top post
October 5th, 2006 at 12:07 pm
Here Here!
October 5th, 2006 at 1:34 pm
I am suspect of a people that knowingly provides for idiots and scumbags to be their leaders. I can’t say that there is beauty in that, systemic or otherwise.
October 5th, 2006 at 3:56 pm
Oh, and “the other one” was named Paula Jones, I believe. That one was just sexual harrassment, but let’s not quibble…the Repugs are all convinced that Clinton is the cause of all evil, including ex-Congressman Foley. Just ask Ken.
October 5th, 2006 at 8:09 pm
Cannons opponent has got to have something going for him, if only that he’s courageously stepping up in an attempt to provide a different sort of representation for so many of us. I don’t think Cannon should lose simply because he misread a particular phrase, then repeated it. He should lose for being a loyal member of this mal-administration. He never represented me. Not on a single issue… Wait… His ‘bigot-confirming statements only serve to solidify a perception of worthiness’? Are we running a circus here, only a baby-step above the highschool class clown being shoved forward for election. I’ve been led to believe we were trying to polish up a democracy. I stand corrected.
I’m kind of attached to my little screen moniker. It’s latin for ‘let the buyer beware’, (as if you didn’t know)a value we should all become very sensative to come this election day, when hopefully, we’ll bid this freakshow a one-way trip into the sunset. But, If you really must know, while my real name is Merit, I still prefer Caveat for this purpose. Thanks again, Cliff, for the forum. Peace.
October 5th, 2006 at 8:37 pm
The entire Foley issue is being blown out of proportion, politically speaking. Not by our local politicians, but by the national Democrats (and some Republicans) as well as frustrated liberals around the nation. As a liberal frustrated by the political scene’s swing to the Right over the past few decades, I can understand their eagerness to latch onto any possible weakness. But we have to be careful and not get carried away on the inconsequential. We have to focus on what this really means and what really matters.
The fact that Foley is homosexual? No big deal. As long as any relationship he engaged in was truly consensual, it isn’t our business. We have no evidence that he engaged in any coercive sexual relationship. Totally inappropriate flirting, true. But only flirting nonetheless.
While we’re on the subject of sexual orientation, lets put the pedophilia talk away. These pages are teens, not prepubescents. In making predatory advances on these young men, he crossed a serious moral line. But we should recognize the difference between this and pedophilia.
The fact that the House leaders didn’t blow any whistles? I’m not sure this is much of a story either. I’m not following the story closely, so I could be mistaken; but as I understand it, there is no evidence that the House leadership knew Foley was actively pursuing sexual relations with the pages. The communications of which they were aware was much more tame than the recently exposed e-mails. Given that fact, I have no problem with leaders addressing the issue privately. I know of employers who discovered evidence that their employees were having alcohol, pornography, or various mental health issues. Instead of publicly disciplining and exposing their employees, they confronted them privately, seeking to understand, and demanding that steps be taken to resolve the issue (rehab, 12-step, psychological counselling, etc). I respect that. I have no problem IF–and further investigations will determine whether or not that “if†was the case–IF the House leadership approached Foley, confronted him with their concerns, insisted that he take steps to resolve the issue before it crossed any serious moral lines. They can’t be held accountable if Foley chose to continue to go down a dark path in spite of their counsel.
To use an analogy, lets assume that a manager notices that two of his employees are getting unusually friendly–lets say two employees married to other people. She is concerned the possibility exists that the two are sexually involved. But she also recognizes that there is no proof or reason to jump to that conclusion. She could publicly announce her suspicions and the evidence by which she made that conclusion, demanding their resignation. But she recognizes that this could lead to humiliation, broken relationships, and the loss of good employees. Instead, she confronts the two privately, expressing her concerns, asking if there is any substance to her concerns, and asking that they make some changes to reassure her.
I’m no fan off Hassert, and would love to see him depart. But only for legitimate reasons. This MAY be the route that Hassert and others decided to take–not as a “cover-up,†but out of respect for the people involved. I think we should recognize that possibility until evidence proves otherwise.
That said, there ARE two real issues here. The first I alluded to in my comment previously quoted. The Republican revolution was largely based on the implication that Democrats were synonymous with depravity, and that Republicans were by virtue of their very ideology more righteous. Foley’s sins are just the latest in a series of scandals which prove this premise to be blatantly false. That is not to say that Democrats or liberals are innately more virtuous. There are sinners and tortured souls of every single sex, race, religion, ideological persuasion, or political party. But if this central premise of the Republican platform is undermined–if they can no longer play the morality card–there is little reason for their existence. It is completely justifiable to point that out.
It is worth noting that Democrats seeking to use that for political gain had better be wary. If they are going to suggest that they are by nature morally superior to the Republicans, they are going to be under the same microscope. They will be held to the same accounting. They will have to watch themselves like hawks, and be willing to scrupulously hold any among their ranks accountable for any transgression they find. In other words, they must police themselves even more vigorously than they police the Republicans. If they don’t, they will have proven that they are just as hypocritical as the Republicans.
The second real issue deals with individual conservative politicians and activists who are exposing their ignorance and bigotry. This not only includes people like Cannon, who apparently feels that the presence of a homosexual is a mild irritant (I can just hear him saying “Foley gives me the willies. Kinda like that Scott McCoy. I wonder if he’s gay?â€), but also Paul Weyrich, president of the Free Congress Foundation. Weyrich stated yesterday on NPR’s _All Things Considered_ that homosexuals “as we know, are preoccupied by sex.â€
(question for Mr. Wayrich: how many men on earth of either sexual orientation do you think AREN’T “preoccupied†with sex on a regular basis?)
Cliff hit the key point. Foley’s sins are a moot point. Cannon’s bigotry is not. I am very disappointed to have a man of such immaturity representing our state. To the extent that his opinion is supported by his constituents and by many other conservatives like Paul Weyrich, it reflects rather poorly on the moral foundation of conservatism in general.
October 6th, 2006 at 8:10 am
Caveat Merit,
Hopefully you’ve noticed the poll on the side panel (as well as the festive new halloween colors) of which you are the subject.
I think I speak for many when I suggest you become a contributing author to OneUtah. You are clearly artculate, thoughtful, and concerned.
There are no rules, no coordination, no censorship. I have never met some of the others. The only requirement, is that you use your real name when top posting.
Just register and and send me a photo cliff ‘at’ you know the rest.org
Say yes?
Cliff
October 7th, 2006 at 7:30 pm
[...] (Bonus: OneUtah.org - read about Chris Cannon (R-UT) and his bigot-faced “gaydar” statement (here) and his “precocious” commentary re the Hastert-Foley pervert affair (here)) [...]