That's what Orson Scott Card is with Gary Trudeau and his comparisons between George Bush and Bill Clinton:

"The second president [Clinton] lies about hooking up with an intern."

Aw, yeah, that's nothing. Now, if Clinton had sent her dirty messages by IM or email, then he should have not just been impeached, but convicted and thrown out of office. But actually getting her to perform sexual acts on him, and then lying about it -- heck, who doesn't do that with underage sex partners who are in an almost infinitely subservient relationship with the most powerful man on earth?

And the lying -- never mind that it was under oath in a court proceeding. Never mind that the lie was not to protect national security in any way, but merely to obstruct his opponent in a personal lawsuit based on previous sexual misconduct. It just doesn't matter because it's kind of charming that Clinton's insatiable sexual appetite could not be controlled even when he was in the White House.

Because that just makes him a "babe hound," to quote Trudeau's comic strip. And the Left finds "babe hounds" rather charming. Unless they're Republicans, in which case they must be hounded from office immediately.

This is the moral universe of Garry Trudeau -- and of thousands, perhaps millions of others who subscribe to the Smarty-Pants school of moral reasoning. President Bush, whose actions have obviously been motivated solely by the desire to protect America from a genuine danger from bloodthirsty enemies, is worthy of impeachment for the crimes of (a) not always being right, (b) doing what other presidents have done, and (c) having national media figures hate him so badly that they will happily believe any vile rumor his enemies spread about.

And lest the lefty wingnuts howl about this last, they should read the whole thing, in which their hateful loony rants are preemptively demolished.

Monica was 21, an adult, just like Chandra levy.

Mark Foley was involved with under-age boys, and
Card and Simberg may not see the difference but
even the GOP Base did.

I won't defend what Foley did. He needs to be in jail, not in rehab for drinking. I've been plenty drunk before, but Skippy the paperboy never started looking good. How are these two things related ? If it had been my son, I'd be in jail, Foley would be on crutches for life. A baseball bat to both knees would slow his thought processes where teenage boys were concerned. The boys father showed restraint.

That being neither here nor there, it doesn't change the fact that what Uncle Orson said is true. If a Republican is ACCUSED of a crime, he must resign, don sack cloth and roll in ashes. If a Democrat is caught red handed, it's part of the vast Right-Wing Conspiracy.

What conspiracy is it that made Congressman Jefferson of Louisiana take bribes? And he's still in office.

Clinton decontrolled the export of dual-use technology by transferring oversight of such exports from the State and Defense departments to the Commerce department, where he had placed a man with curious ties to the Chinese Communist government. Chinese Communist government money made its' way into Clinton's campaign chest. Clinton's Attorney General took a cursory look into the matter, and in a magnificent display of impartiality, pronounced that no further investigation was warranted. You dare defend him--we have not yet discoverd just how much damage Bill Clinton has done to this country, o ye anonymous Faithful.

The problem, Steve, is that the wingbats pay only lip service to moral and ethics. It is a talking point to be used against the right, not something to actually use or practice themselves. If it were, would William Jefferson, D-Louisana still be in Congress?

I may be wrong, but wasn't it proven that Foleys "boys" all turned out to be of consent age?

No Cecil, you are right. Details do matter.

I may be wrong, but wasn't it proven that Foleys "boys" all turned out to be of consent age?

Age of consent in D.C., yes. I am reasonably certain that engaging minors over the internet is illegal.

So he'd have been 'all right' if he wer a) a Democrat and/or b) doing his jail-bait trolling in person.

Which is both sad and cynical but there it is.

The Irony was that had foley just locked the door and
had hot sweaty sex with a page, it would not be a
violation of DC law. However, because he was trolling
for boys on the internet, the crime became a federal
one . A law he had sponsored about using the internet
for sex patrolling, made it a crime.

That's what made the whole thing such a news magnet.

Now the DoJ has to impanel a grand jury
and indict and convict until then it's just a salacious
story. However, he copped to the major facts and
resigned, so it seems sound enough to me.

As for Jefferson, he's not been indicted.
Much Like DeLay, until the indictment is issued,
they do get to keep their jobs. Now, if the voters
of Louisiana return him to office? That's a sticky one.

DeLay, Trafficant, Jefferson, Lewis, Ney, Doolittle.
All stayed in long after the scandal broke.
It usually takes an indictment to pull them out of
leadership, It takes a conviction to pull them from
their seats.

Ney stayed in even after pleading guilty, because he
hadn't been sentenced.

Lest I be accused of mere tribalism, I should state that on this very particular comparison, Anonymous is making sense. I'll note also that Card's remark about Lieberman forgiving "the Democratic Party for abandoning him in Connecticut and running somebody against him" presumes that an actual party organization had anything to do with it, as opposed to one guy with ambition and a lot of money. And his mention of "iron discipline" in connection with the Democratic Party is unintentionally hilarious.

(I also recall an earlier column of Card's where he claimed that the Chinese response to student protests at Tiananmen Square, June 1989, was caused by the Chinese leadership's fear of revolution like that in Romania, December 1989. Oops.)

None of which is to say that Trudeau isn't an embittered loser -- that's obvious. But it doesn't follow that every fisking of Trudeau will be accurate in all details.

AFAIK, nobody (outside of NAMBLA) has ever defended Mark Foley on moral grounds, so holding him up as an example of Republican inconsistency on sexual misconduct issues is ludicrous. A lot of people do perceive that Foley broke no laws, logically concluding that if sixteen is age of consent for sex in DC, it's also age of consent for lewd emails sent from one DC office to another.

Bill Clinton was impeached because of a law he himself signed into existence:

Part of the trial consisted of the introduction of evidence surrounding Monica Lewinsky. Historically, evidence of prior sexual offenses was not admissible in Civil Court. However, Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 415, allowed evidence "of similar acts of sexual harassment and eschewal in civil cases concerning sexual assault or child molestation." Thus, the evidence regarding Ms. Lewinsky was admissible. The irony is that it was President Clinton who signed FRE 415 into law in 1994, as part of the "Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act."

If Clinton had not signed the law, Monica is just another bimbo eruption and not a material witness to a civil suit, thus there is no Monica testimony for Clinton to illegally fix.

Further to what Alan wrote, note that the reason that the Lewinsky affair came to light was in relation to a civil suit brought against Clinton by Juanita Broaddrick, who accused him of raping her; Lewinsky's example was used to establish a pattern in Clinton's personal behavior.

Anyone who thinks that Bush's conduct while in office is in any way comparable to Clinton's should forfeit their right to vote, on the basis that they are not adults.

...note that the reason that the Lewinsky affair came to light was in relation to a civil suit brought against Clinton by Juanita Broaddrick, who accused him of raping her;

No, that was Paula Jones, who accused him of sexually harassing her. Broaddrick has never made formal charges (and the statute of limitations was long past by the time she was brave enough to come forward, since it happened back in the seventies, when Clinton was Attorney General of Arkansas).

Some blogger with time on his hands ought to do a comparative study of the treatment of R vs. D scandals. These single sample p*ssing matches don't convince anybody.

> I am reasonably certain that engaging minors over the internet is illegal.

Oh goody, another "law".

A cite would be nice. Note - it has to apply to engaging folks who are of legal age according to the jurisdiction of both parties. (I wouldn't be surprised if there was a federal law with a higher bar than the state requirements, but my lack of surprise isn't evidence either way.)

one of the laws which Mark Foley appears to have violated is the so-called "Adam Walsh Child Protection Act of 2006" which, among other things, increases penalties for adults who use the Internet to discuss or solicit sexual acts with "minors" (defined as an "individual who has not attained the age of 18 years"). GOP leaders hailed this law as a vital tool in protecting our nation's children against Internet predators:
---

I think a better comparison is the treatment of Clinton vs Judge Clarence Thomas who was villified and attacked for making an off-color comment or two while Clinton was defended tooth and nail while accused of far more inappropriate behavior.

Guess it's good to be the King.

"No, that was Paula Jones"

I stand corrected.

If a Republican is ACCUSED of a crime, he must resign, don sack cloth and roll in ashes. If a Democrat is caught red handed, it's part of the vast Right-Wing Conspiracy.

Unless you happen to be a elderly Californian with a (possibly legitimate) poor memory. Then you get off while Oliver North takes the fall.

Unless North took the fall because the alternative was unthinkable. Wait...I hear X-Files coming on! Doo-doooo-doo-doo-doo-dooooooo

Reagan didn't have to resign because nobody violated the relevant law - the Boland Amendment, which barred "covert assistance for military operations in Nicaragua." Ollie didn't give direct aid to the Contras - he traded with someone who would aid the Contras. (Loopholes can be a good thing.) It's a shame that Edward Boland wasn't fighting on our side of the Cold War.

So how come Gerry Studds didn't have to resign when he was caught having a sexual affair with a 17-year-old male page in 1973? The sexual age of consent for sodomy in DC was still 18 back then.

I think you'll have to build a time machine if you want to figure that one out. Most likely because he's a filthy slimebag and wanted to collect his pension check. What's really a disgrace is that Massachusetts continued electing him. When you can't find a better candidate than a child molester, you really don't have a whole lot going for you as a state.

I agree that he really should have been expelled from the house. Perhaps the Republican opposition wasn't sure that they'd get the 2/3 majority, so went for the moral victory with a lesser charge hoping that he'd be voted out for the next term.

Try sticking to the facts.

Studds relationship with a gay 17 year old
was legal in DC. Age of consent has been 16 for
a very long time.

Poor judgement picking a page, distasteful,
he was censured, but, re-elected.

But given he was openly gay, he formed a long
term relationship and were married.

sounds like a star-crossed love affair.

There is no such legal term, definition, or statement in the law known as: "sexual harassment and eschewal." Someone fabricated "sexual harassment and eschewal" and caught you all in their internet joke.