Actually (H/T to Jerry), the Wall Street Journal has it just about right:
[I]n today's politically correct culture, it's easy to understand how senior Republicans might well have decided they had no grounds to doubt Mr. Foley merely because he was gay and a little too friendly in emails. Some of those liberals now shouting the loudest for Mr. Hastert's head are the same voices who tell us that the larger society must be tolerant of private lifestyle choices, and certainly must never leap to conclusions about gay men and young boys. Are these Democratic critics of Mr. Hastert saying that they now have more sympathy for the Boy Scouts' decision to ban gay scoutmasters? Where's Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi on that one?Of course, in Foley's case, we're talking about perverse fantasies, not actual practice. It's appropriate to remember how Democrats reacted to actual perversion:
This is harsher treatment than was meted out in the past to some Members of Congress who crossed another line and actually had sexual relations with underage pages. Democrat Gerry Studds of Massachusetts was censured in 1983 for seducing a male teenage page, but remained in the House for another 13 years and retired, according to the Boston Globe, with a rich pension.Jerry has written another good post about the whole imbroglio, as well, noting the utter confusion of the far Left, in whose circles homosexual behavior is supposed to be acceptable.
Thankfully, we have the New York Times to makes these fine distinctions between acceptably perverse behavior, and unacceptably perverse behavior.